Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-trezor.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-trezor-0.7.6-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Client side implementation for TREZOR-compatible Bitcoin hardware wallets. See http://bitcointrezor.com for more information. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16597551
Updated to 0.7.7: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-trezor.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-trezor-0.7.7-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Client side implementation for TREZOR-compatible Bitcoin hardware wallets. See http://bitcointrezor.com for more information. Fedora Account System Username: jonny Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16597828
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1398340-python- trezor/licensecheck.txt BSD (3 clause) trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py All source files are without license headers (the one exception to the above). Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. See above [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Please, add a comment [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-trezor-0.7.7-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-trezor-0.7.7-1.fc26.src.rpm python2-trezor.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary trezorctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-trezor.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary trezorctl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gil/1398340-python-trezor/srpm/python-trezor.spec 2016-11-25 00:24:18.767221286 +0100 +++ /home/gil/1398340-python-trezor/srpm-unpacked/python-trezor.spec 2016-11-24 14:48:27.000000000 +0100 @@ -57,3 +57,3 @@ * Thu Nov 17 2016 Jonny Heggheim <jonnyheggheim> - 0.7.6-1 -- initial package +- Initial package Requires -------- python2-trezor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python2-pbkdf2 Provides -------- python2-trezor: python-trezor python2-trezor python2.7dist(trezor) python2dist(trezor) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/trezor/trezor-0.7.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd1adc783d6e9864f87f5ed9e973c78f7f31d749856634a50097bff6158d5b7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd1adc783d6e9864f87f5ed9e973c78f7f31d749856634a50097bff6158d5b7d Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1398340 --plugins Python -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 52 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1398340-python- > trezor/licensecheck.txt > > BSD (3 clause) trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py > All source files are without license headers (the one exception to the > above). > Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, > and add license headers > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-json/ > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > > [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > > See above > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > Please, add a comment > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- /home/gil/1398340-python-trezor/srpm/python-trezor.spec 2016-11-25 > 00:24:18.767221286 +0100 > +++ /home/gil/1398340-python-trezor/srpm-unpacked/python-trezor.spec > 2016-11-24 14:48:27.000000000 +0100 > @@ -57,3 +57,3 @@ > > * Thu Nov 17 2016 Jonny Heggheim <jonnyheggheim> - 0.7.6-1 > -- initial package > +- Initial package
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM Looks like fedora-review used the 0.7.6-1 SRPM instead of the 0.7.7-1 SRPM. Not sure how I can fix it for future reviews.
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #5) > > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > Looks like fedora-review used the 0.7.6-1 SRPM instead of the 0.7.7-1 SRPM. > Not sure how I can fix it for future reviews. Rebuild src rpm ... but seem only the spec file outdate ...
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 52 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1398340-python- > trezor/licensecheck.txt > > BSD (3 clause) trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py > All source files are without license headers (the one exception to the > above). > Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, > and add license headers > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Created issue and added comment in spec file: https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/84 Next version will include license header. > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py Added Provides: bundled(python-protobuf-json) = 0.0.5 and created isssue https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/86 > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > Please, add a comment Created issue https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/85 The next version will include a fix. > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) I have deleted the old SRPM files and hope that helps
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-trezor.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-trezor-0.7.7-2.fc25.src.rpm Description: Client side implementation for TREZOR-compatible Bitcoin hardware wallets. See http://bitcointrezor.com for more information. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16622868
Approved
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10) > Approved Thanks
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-trezor
Anyone that can review bug 1464797 (trezor-common)? The udev rules will be moved into this package and the protobuf messages will be regenerated from trezor-common.