Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-scrypt.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library Fedora Account System Username: hguemar
Some comments: - About adding unit tests in %check, unit tests are broken in tarball from pipy as described in https://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt/issues/21/test-breaks-importerror-no-module-named - This package is bundling scrypt release 1.2.0 from https://github.com/Tarsnap/scrypt. As scrypt does not exist in fedora, i understand this is ok and we can go on without using the "Provides: bundled(scrypt)" as shown in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries - Package doesn't have a LICENSE file upstream. It'd be nice if it would have one, but license seems correctly set in setup.py
%{description} macro is not properly expanded in subpackages: $ rpm -qip python2-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm Name : python2-scrypt Version : 0.8.0 Release : 1.fc27 Architecture: x86_64 Install Date: (not installed) Group : Unspecified Size : 62205 License : BSD Signature : (none) Source RPM : python-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Build Date : Tue 06 Jun 2017 04:59:47 PM CEST Build Host : faemino Relocations : (not relocatable) URL : http://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt Summary : Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library Description : %{description} Could you fix that, please?
Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-scrypt.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-scrypt-0.8.0-2.fc26.src.rpm Fixed, as for the virtual provides, script does not provide any library but a command-line, I'm not sure there are precedents. But anyway, I added them, it can be removed later without consequences.
You used "bundled(script)", it should be bundled(scrypt) :)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1458441-python- scrypt/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 20480 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]: 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-scrypt , python3-scrypt , python-scrypt-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-scrypt-0.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm python3-scrypt-0.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm python-scrypt-debuginfo-0.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm python-scrypt-0.8.0-2.fc27.src.rpm python2-scrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying python2-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python2-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python3-scrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying python3-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python3-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python-scrypt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-scrypt-debuginfo-0.8.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-scrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying python3-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python3-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python2-scrypt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting -> decryption, encrypting, decrying python2-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python2-scrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python-scrypt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-scrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python2-scrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-scrypt-debuginfo: python-scrypt-debuginfo python-scrypt-debuginfo(x86-64) python3-scrypt: bundled(scrypt) python3-scrypt python3-scrypt(x86-64) python3.6dist(scrypt) python3dist(scrypt) python2-scrypt: bundled(scrypt) python-scrypt python-scrypt(x86-64) python2-scrypt python2-scrypt(x86-64) python2.7dist(scrypt) python2dist(scrypt) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python2-scrypt: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_scrypt.so python3-scrypt: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/_scrypt.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/scrypt/scrypt-0.8.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d4a5a4f53450b8ef629bbf1ee4be6105c69936e49b3d8bc621ac2287f0c86020 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d4a5a4f53450b8ef629bbf1ee4be6105c69936e49b3d8bc621ac2287f0c86020 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1458441 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Some comments: - As stated in previous comment unit tests can't be run because of issue reported in https://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt/issues/21/test-breaks-importerror-no-module-named - A issue has been opened upstream to include a license file, https://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt/issues/31/please-include-license-file-in-source - package is bundling scrypt library non existing in fedora, what i think it's acceptable and a provides bundled(scrypt) has been added. python-scrypt has been licensed under the same license as bundled library. This package is APPROVED
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-scrypt