Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-crypt-r.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-crypt-r-3.13.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: The crypt_r module is a renamed copy of the crypt module as it was present in Python 3.12 before it was removed. See PEP 594 for details of the removal. Unlike crypt, this library always exposes the crypt_r(3) function, not crypt(3). This module implements an interface to the crypt_r(3) routine, which is a one-way hash function based upon a modified DES algorithm; see the Unix man page for further details. Possible uses include storing hashed passwords so you can check passwords without storing the actual password, or attempting to crack Unix passwords with a dictionary. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
Scratchbuild: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117072222 (s390x still waits for a builder, the rest is OK).
I built the package in both current Rawhide and Python 3.13 mock to compare how it behaves, all looks good. Specfile OK. Provides and requires OK. Questions from package review: [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed This is too cryptic for me and I can't find the proper documentation in Packaging Guidelines. Any pointers? [?]: 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. Our .so file is not a development file. Do I want or not want it in ld path? How do I verify? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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 7337 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [?]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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.
(In reply to Karolina Surma from comment #2) > Questions from package review: > > [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > This is too cryptic for me and I can't find the proper documentation in > Packaging Guidelines. Any pointers? I have never seen this before, will dig. > [?]: 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. > Our .so file is not a development file. Do I want or not want it in ld path? > How do I verify? All Python extension modules produce this bogus report from Fedora Review. /usr/lib64/python*/* is not in ld path. This is not an issue. You can verify with: $ ld --verbose | grep SEARCH_DIR SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib64"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/local/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/lib"); SEARCH_DIR("=/usr/lib");
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed Implementation in https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/blob/9889f74a6b500e807f5d2f297700126537e94b6a/f/plugins/ccpp.py#_311 The check results in [?] with "Sources not installed" when it cannot find stuff in the SRPM. I don't know why it cannot find stuff in the SRPM, but the thing it tries to find ("*00gnulib.m4") isn't there, the check should have passed. There is no bundled gnulib here, all is good.
Thank you for checking that. This makes it all clear. Package APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-crypt-r
FEDORA-2024-0bca491aba (python-crypt-r-3.13.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0bca491aba
FEDORA-2024-0bca491aba (python-crypt-r-3.13.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.