Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ckzg.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: A minimal implementation of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594 Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126275217
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8315982 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2328989-python-ckzg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08315982-python-ckzg/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ 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.
Why exclude s390x? Could the package be built from GitHub and a python subpackage created? Could blst be packaged separately and then imported? https://github.com/supranational/blst Minor errors python-ckzg.src: E: summary-too-long A minimal implementation of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594 python3-ckzg.x86_64: E: summary-too-long A minimal implementation of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594 python-ckzg.src: E: description-line-too-long A minimal implementation of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594. python3-ckzg.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long A minimal implementation of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594.
A copr with start of package for blst https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8317818
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > Why exclude s390x? Readded s390x back with upstream patches. > Could the package be built from GitHub and a python subpackage created? I didn't try it. I need it as an underlying library for Python Ethereum stack. I don't think these subpackages will be useful alone w/o Ethereum stack on top of it. > Could blst be packaged separately and then imported? > https://github.com/supranational/blst I'd stick with bundled copy right now since it's exactly what upstream does. Also I doubt we'll ever have more packages dependent on it. > Minor errors > python-ckzg.src: E: summary-too-long A minimal implementation of the > Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594 > python3-ckzg.x86_64: E: summary-too-long A minimal implementation of the > Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594 > python-ckzg.src: E: description-line-too-long A minimal implementation of > the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594. > python3-ckzg.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long A minimal implementation > of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594. Shortened this line. Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ckzg.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127638924
Created attachment 2065055 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8315982 to 8482192
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8482192 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2328989-python-ckzg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08482192-python-ckzg/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ 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 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/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]". 167 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-ckzg/2328989-python-ckzg/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.13 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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: 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 4162 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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: [-]: 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. [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. [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 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm python-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxgy2lnta')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-ckzg.spec:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(blst) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-ckzg: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/ckzg.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/ckzg/ckzg-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 62c5adc381637affa7e1df465c57750b356a761b8a3164c3106589b02532b9c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 62c5adc381637affa7e1df465c57750b356a761b8a3164c3106589b02532b9c9 Requires -------- python3-ckzg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-ckzg: python-ckzg python3-ckzg python3-ckzg(x86-64) python3.13-ckzg python3.13dist(ckzg) python3dist(ckzg) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2328989 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Approved b) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2338432 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ckzg
FEDORA-2025-86f0f21973 (python-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-86f0f21973
FEDORA-2025-9f73cc1579 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9f73cc1579 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9f73cc1579 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-86f0f21973 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-86f0f21973 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-86f0f21973 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9f73cc1579 (python-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-86f0f21973 (python-ckzg-2.0.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.