Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pycryptodomex/python-pycryptodomex.spec SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pycryptodomex/python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: PyCryptodome is a self-contained Python package of low-level cryptographic primitives. It's a fork of PyCrypto. It brings several enhancements with respect to the last official version of PyCrypto (2.6.1), for instance: * Authenticated encryption modes (GCM, CCM, EAX, SIV, OCB) * Accelerated AES on Intel platforms via AES-NI * Elliptic curves cryptography (NIST P-256 curve only) * Better and more compact API (nonce and iv attributes for ciphers, automatic generation of random nonces and IVs, simplified CTR cipher mode, and more) * SHA-3 (including SHAKE XOFs) and BLAKE2 hash algorithms * Salsa20 and ChaCha20 stream ciphers * scrypt and HKDF * Deterministic (EC)DSA * Password-protected PKCS#8 key containers * Shamir’s Secret Sharing scheme * Random numbers get sourced directly from the OS (and not from a CSPRNG in userspace) * Cleaner RSA and DSA key generation (largely based on FIPS 186-4) * Major clean ups and simplification of the code base PyCryptodome is not a wrapper to a separate C library like OpenSSL. To the largest possible extent, algorithms are implemented in pure Python. Only the pieces that are extremely critical to performance (e.g. block ciphers) are implemented as C extensions. Fedora Account System Username: melmorabity Note: upstream provides two "flavors" of the library, which is a fork of pycrypto: - pycryptodome: one overriding the pycrypto library (all modules are installed under the Crypto package, and then conflict with the python-crypto package) - pycryptodomex: one independent of the pycrypto library (all modules are installed under the Cryptodome package). This package provides the pycryptodomex flavor to avoid conflicts.
- License seems to be Public Domain and BSD: https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst I did not find any ASL 2.0. There's also the issue of the OCB license in Doc/ocb/license1.pdf: License for Open Source Software Implementations of OCB January 9, 2013 1 Definitions 1.1 “Licensor” means Phillip Rogaway. 1.2 “Licensed Patents” means any patent that claims priority to United States Patent Application No. 09/918,615 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Facilitating Efficient Authenticated Encryption,” and any utility, divisional, provisional, continuation, continuations-in-part, reexamination, reissue, or foreign counterpart patents that may issue with respect to the aforesaid patent application. This includes, but is not limited to, United States Patent No. 7,046,802; United States Patent No. 7,200,227; United States Patent No. 7,949,129; United States Patent No. 8,321,675; and any patent that issues out of United States Patent Application No. 13/669,114. 1.3 “Use” means any practice of any invention claimed in the Licensed Patents. 1.4 “Software Implementation” means any practice of any invention claimed in the Licensed Patents that takes the form of software executing on a user- programmable, general-purpose computer or that takes the form of a computer- readable medium storing such software. Software Implementation does not include, for example, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field- programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), embedded systems, or IP cores. 1.5 “Open Source Software” means software whose source code is published and made available for inspection and use by anyone because either (a) the source code is subject to a license that permits recipients to copy, modify, and distribute the source code without payment of fees or royalties, or (b) the source code is in the public domain, including code released for public use through a CC0 waiver. All licenses certified by the Open Source Initiative at opensource.org as of January 9, 2013 and all Creative Commons licenses identified on the creativecommons.org website as of January 9, 2013, including the Public License Fallback of the CC0 waiver, satisfy these requirements for the purposes of this license. 1.6 “Open Source Software Implementation” means a Software Implementation in which the software implicating the Licensed Patents is Open Source Software. Open Source Software Implementation does not include any Software Implementation in which the software implicating the Licensed Patents is combined, so as to form a larger program, with software that is not Open Source Software. 2 License Grant 2.1 License. Subject to your compliance with the terms of this license, including the restriction set forth in Section 2.2, Licensor hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable license to practice any invention claimed in the Licensed Patents in any Open Source Software Implementation. 2.2 Restriction. If you or your affiliates institute patent litigation (including, but not limited to, a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) against any entity alleging that any Use authorized by this license infringes another patent, then any rights granted to you under this license automatically terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. 3 Disclaimer YOUR USE OF THE LICENSED PATENTS IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED PATENTS OR ANY PRODUCT EMBODYING ANY LICENSED PATENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO ANY USE OF THE LICENSED PATENTS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES PRIOR TO SUCH AN OCCURRENCE. I'd need FE-LEGAL opinion en this. ============== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* GPL", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 416 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pycryptodomex/review-python- pycryptodomex/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 61440 bytes in 6 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-pycryptodomex , python3-pycryptodomex [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm python3-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm python-pycryptodomex-debuginfo-3.4.12-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm python-pycryptodomex-debugsource-3.4.12-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-1.fc29.src.rpm python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonces -> bonces, nonce, nonce's python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrypt -> crypt, crypts, script python2-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/test_vectors/ECC/ecc_p256_x509.pem python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonces -> bonces, nonce, nonce's python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrypt -> crypt, crypts, script python3-pycryptodomex.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/Cryptodome/SelfTest/PublicKey/test_vectors/ECC/ecc_p256_x509.pem python-pycryptodomex-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-pycryptodomex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonces -> bonces, nonce, nonce's python-pycryptodomex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrypt -> crypt, crypts, script 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 62 errors, 9 warnings.
OCB patent license is fine. Lifting FE-Legal.
Does a review need to be made for disallowed crypto algorithms?
I just did it, it's fine. If other ECC algorithms besides prime256v1 (NIST P-256) show up, please let me know.
Thank you Robert-André for the review. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - License seems to be Public Domain and BSD: > https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst I did not > find any ASL 2.0. The license tag is fixed. > There's also the issue of the OCB license in Doc/ocb/license1.pdf: Good catch :). Thanks Tom for the legal review. Spec URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pycryptodomex/python-pycryptodomex.spec SRPM URL: https://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pycryptodomex/python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-2.fc27.src.rpm
Thanks spot for being so quick. Package approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pycryptodomex
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fc4179ded4
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7467524a25
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4d0105c8a6
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4d0105c8a6
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fc4179ded4
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f99f8d2fe3
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8a54e41bcf
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ce4e4501c0
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-702bf2655b
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5dcf74cc38
python-pycryptodomex-3.4.12-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f99f8d2fe3
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-702bf2655b
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5dcf74cc38
*** Bug 1370919 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-pycryptodomex-3.5.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.