Bug 2241728 - Review Request: python-tiny-proxy - Simple proxy server (SOCKS4(a), SOCKS5(h), HTTP tunnel)
Summary: Review Request: python-tiny-proxy - Simple proxy server (SOCKS4(a), SOCKS5(h)...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 2247996
Blocks: 2154633
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-10-02 11:42 UTC by Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
Modified: 2023-11-21 06:58 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-11-21 06:48:40 UTC
Type: ---
benson_muite: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2023-10-02 11:42:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-tiny-proxy/python-tiny-proxy.spec
SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-tiny-proxy/python-tiny-proxy-0.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Simple proxy (SOCKS4(a), SOCKS5(h), HTTP tunnel) server built with anyio. It is
used for testing python-socks, aiohttp-socks and httpx-socks packages.

Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha

Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2023-10-02 11:42:50 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106986950

Comment 2 Benson Muite 2023-11-03 21:26:22 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Dist tag is present.

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 26
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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
[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.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[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 1176 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: 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

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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).
[ ]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[!]: 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: No rpmlint messages.

Checking: python3-tiny-proxy-0.2.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq3h766n8')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-tiny-proxy.src: W: strange-permission python-tiny-proxy.spec 600
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Source checksums
https://github.com/romis2012/tiny-proxy/archive/v0.2.0/tiny-proxy-0.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 04080b5047ff4d3eb2fcc195be02d03d11aa96d36f770a75e84395c28fcd34f5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04080b5047ff4d3eb2fcc195be02d03d11aa96d36f770a75e84395c28fcd34f5

python3-tiny-proxy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.12dist(anyio) < 4~~ with python3.12dist(anyio) >= 3.6.1)


Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
--- /home/fedora/2241728-python-tiny-proxy/srpm/python-tiny-proxy.spec  2023-11-03 20:45:06.693804176 +0000
+++ /home/fedora/2241728-python-tiny-proxy/srpm-unpacked/python-tiny-proxy.spec 2023-10-02 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
 %global _description %{expand:
 Simple proxy (SOCKS4(a), SOCKS5(h), HTTP tunnel) server built with anyio. It is
@@ -56,3 +66,10 @@
+* Mon Oct 02 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.2.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+* Sun Sep 10 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur>
+- wip
+* Sat Jul 29 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur>
+- init

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241728
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, SugarActivity, Java

a) Warning in tests:
  /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/aiohttp/cookiejar.py:57: DeprecationWarning: datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp() is deprecated
 and scheduled for removal in a future version. Use timezone-aware objects to represent datetimes in UTC: datetime.datetime.fromtimes
tamp(timestamp, datetime.UTC).
    MAX_32BIT_TIME = datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(2**31 - 1)

b) Approved.

Comment 3 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-11-05 09:43:56 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tiny-proxy

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2023-11-21 06:48:06 UTC
FEDORA-2023-aa8248258e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-aa8248258e

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2023-11-21 06:48:40 UTC
FEDORA-2023-aa8248258e has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-11-21 06:58:57 UTC
FEDORA-2023-be93a63fa8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-be93a63fa8

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