Bug 1382332 - Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures
Summary: Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1382333
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-10-06 11:29 UTC by Christian Dersch
Modified: 2020-11-28 07:31 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-04-02 11:02:10 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christian Dersch 2016-10-06 11:29:02 UTC
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-axolotl-curve25519.spec
SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-axolotl-curve25519-0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: curve25519 with ed25519 signatures, required by python-axolotl which can enhance the XMPP client gajim for OMEMO 
Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

Koji scratch build (rawhide): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15967569

Thank you very much for review in advance!

Comment 1 Dominika Krejčí 2016-10-14 10:12:15 UTC
Hello Christian, I have some comments:

* It is useless to create a %{sum} macro. Just write the content to `Summary` and in the rest of the file you can use %{summary} macro. ;)

* `%description` should contain more comprehensive description then `Summary`.

* The file `PKG-INFO` is not a license. ("If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.")

* If you run rpmlint, you will get many errors and warnings. Some of them: 

python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C curve25519 with ed25519 signatures
python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python3-axolotl-curve25519/PKG-INFO
python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-info/PKG-INFO
python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-info/top_level.txt
python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-info/SOURCES.txt
...

Comment 2 Christian Dersch 2016-11-16 15:30:50 UTC
Hi,

thx for your comment. Sorry for answering that late, just forgot it...

(In reply to Dominika Krejčí from comment #1)
> Hello Christian, I have some comments:
> 
> * It is useless to create a %{sum} macro. Just write the content to
> `Summary` and in the rest of the file you can use %{summary} macro. ;)

Definitely not useless. We have subpackages here where the summary macro is overwritten (by itself). It is also common practice to write python specs that way, check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

> 
> * `%description` should contain more comprehensive description then
> `Summary`.
> 
> * The file `PKG-INFO` is not a license. ("If the source package does not
> include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager
> SHOULD query upstream to include it.")

True, I wrote upstream but got no reply yet. So I decided to add PKG_INFO to %license because at least it contains an information about the license.

> 
> * If you run rpmlint, you will get many errors and warnings. Some of them: 
> 
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C curve25519
> with ed25519 signatures
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-axolotl-curve25519/PKG-INFO
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/dependency_links.txt
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/PKG-INFO
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/top_level.txt
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/SOURCES.txt
> ...

False positives, e.g. PKG_INFO is not a script, so it cannot be a script-without-shebang. I always check my stuff using rpmlint, but it is often complaining where it should not.

Comment 3 Michal Schmidt 2017-02-06 18:05:40 UTC
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #2)
> False positives, e.g. PKG_INFO is not a script, so it cannot be a
> script-without-shebang.

rpmlint thinks the files are scripts because the are marked executable. They should not be.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.