Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-conda-content-trust.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-conda-content-trust-0.1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Based on The Update Framework (TUF), conda-content-trust is intended to ensure that when users in the conda ecosystem obtain a package or data about that package, they can know whether or not it is trustworthy (e.g. originally comes from a reliable source and has not been tampered with). A basic library and basic CLI are included to provide signing, verification, and trust delegation functionality. This exists as an alteration of TUF because of the very particular needs of the conda ecosystem. (Developers are encouraged to just use TUF whenever possible!) This tool is general purpose. It is currently used in conda 4.10.1+ to verify package metadata signatures when they are available. Fedora Account System Username: orion Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103499544
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6180083 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223452-python-conda-content-trust/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06180083-python-conda-content-trust/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
* Tue Jul 30 2024 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 0.2.0-1 - Update to 0.2.0 Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-conda-content-trust.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-conda-content-trust-0.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2043104 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6180083 to 7807149
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7807149 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223452-python-conda-content-trust/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07807149-python-conda-content-trust/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Looks good to me, approving! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ This is a false-positive, python3-pytest also provides python3dist(pytest) and isn't deprecated. - Deprecation warning conda_content_trust/common.py:916: DeprecationWarning: datetime.datetime.utcnow() is deprecated and scheduled for removal in a future version. Use timezone-aware objects to represent datetimes in UTC: datetime.datetime.now(datetime.UTC). Let upstream know about this please, but given that there's no date set for that deprecation it doesn't block approval. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [X]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages False-positive [X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-conda- content-trust/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 False-positive [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2633 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-conda-content-trust-0.2.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-conda-content-trust-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpokz_rjhf')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-conda-content-trust.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary conda-content-trust 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-conda-content-trust". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/conda/conda-content-trust/archive/0.2.0/conda-content-trust-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ded769f69a0491bd1e002ce949a332ae5a47a60ce733adb8a724802c8fdfe02b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ded769f69a0491bd1e002ce949a332ae5a47a60ce733adb8a724802c8fdfe02b Requires -------- python3-conda-content-trust (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(cryptography) Provides -------- python3-conda-content-trust: python-conda-content-trust python3-conda-content-trust python3.13-conda-content-trust python3.13dist(conda-content-trust) python3dist(conda-content-trust) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-conda-content-trust --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Actually something that came to me as soon as I hit approve, it might be worth adding `Recommends: gnupg2` in line with https://github.com/conda/conda-content-trust?tab=readme-ov-file#optional-dependencies-for-producing-signatures-with-gpg-keys--yubikeys
(In reply to Daniel Milnes from comment #7) > Actually something that came to me as soon as I hit approve, it might be > worth adding `Recommends: gnupg2` in line with > https://github.com/conda/conda-content-trust?tab=readme-ov-file#optional- > dependencies-for-producing-signatures-with-gpg-keys--yubikeys Sounds good, I'll add that. Thanks for the review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-conda-content-trust