Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/python-pykcs11.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/python-pykcs11-1.5.15-0.fc40.src.rpm Description: A complete PKCS11 wrapper for Python. You can use any PKCS11 (aka CryptoKi) module such as the PSM which comes as part of mozilla or the various modules supplied by vendors of hardware crypto tokens, and almost all PKCS11 functions and data types. The wrapper has been generated with the help of the SWIG compiler. Fedora Account System Username: atim
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117246827
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7408987 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279076-python-pykcs11/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07408987-python-pykcs11/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file license.rst.txt is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #2) license.rst.txt is generated by Sphinx during build. It's not marked because it's a duplicate file of license.rst which already marked: %license docs/license.rst
> # Will switch to autorelease later after all Copr test builds ? Release: 0%{?dist} Copr supports %autorelease > Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/%{pypi_name}/%{mod_name}-%{version}.tar.gz We have %{pypi_source}. Drop the 0 after Source: > # Add Fedora PyKCS11 library location search path > # https://github.com/LudovicRousseau/PyKCS11/pull/113 > Patch: %{url}/pull/113.patch#/Add-Fedora-PyKCS11-library-location-search-path.patch This patch is problematic because it only checks /usr/lib64 and not /usr/lib for 32 bits arches. What are the issues with the tests? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pykcs11/review- python-pykcs11/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10490 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pykcs11 [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: %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 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: python3-pykcs11-1.5.15-0.fc41.x86_64.rpm python-pykcs11-doc-1.5.15-0.fc41.noarch.rpm python-pykcs11-debugsource-1.5.15-0.fc41.x86_64.rpm python-pykcs11-1.5.15-0.fc41.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/tmplr_naass')] checks: 32, packages: 4 python-pykcs11.src: E: spelling-error ('mozilla', '%description -l en_US mozilla -> Mozilla, mozzarella') python3-pykcs11.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mozilla', '%description -l en_US mozilla -> Mozilla, mozzarella') ======================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 17 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s =========================================================================
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > > # Add Fedora PyKCS11 library location search path > > # https://github.com/LudovicRousseau/PyKCS11/pull/113 > > Patch: %{url}/pull/113.patch#/Add-Fedora-PyKCS11-library-location-search-path.patch > > This patch is problematic because it only checks /usr/lib64 and not /usr/lib > for 32 bits arches. Is Fedora still supporting 32 bit arches? Can we just add here "/usr/lib/pkcs11/pkcs11-spy.so" and "/usr/lib/pkcs11/libsofthsm2.so" for compatibility? > What are the issues with the tests? I didn’t have enough time to figure it out and fix the tests. It would be nice if experienced python folks could help with this to speed up the packing process. I've added note about test, they just simply not work in upstream defined way: E: NO TESTS RAN /usr/bin/python3 -m unittest discover pid=413 py312: FAIL code 5 All other issues fixed. New build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07473689-python-pykcs11/python-pykcs11.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07473689-python-pykcs11/python-pykcs11-1.5.15-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2034512 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7408987 to 7473697
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7473697 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279076-python-pykcs11/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07473697-python-pykcs11/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file license.rst.txt is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Package approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pykcs11
FEDORA-2024-fa676ab0de (python-pykcs11-1.5.15-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-fa676ab0de
FEDORA-2024-fa676ab0de (python-pykcs11-1.5.15-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-3531a2fb2e (python-pykcs11-1.5.15-1.fc40, python-pykeepass-4.0.7.post1-2.fc40, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3531a2fb2e
FEDORA-2024-3531a2fb2e has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-3531a2fb2e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3531a2fb2e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.