Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-py_ecc.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: ECC pairing and bn_128 and bls12_381 curve operation Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130748942 naming is a kind of ugly but python-ecc is taken.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8820042 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354914-python-py_ecc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08820042-python-py_ecc/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Uses new macros: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/tree/rawhide ===== MUST items ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-py_ecc/2354914- python-py_ecc/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 [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 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 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 4359 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]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Reading /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IwSc7N Reading /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.j5Lqex ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppc_yi5vv')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-py_ecc.src: E: spelling-error ('bn', 'Summary(en_US) bn -> b, n, bin') python-py_ecc.src: E: spelling-error ('bn', '%description -l en_US bn -> b, n, bin') python3-py_ecc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bn', 'Summary(en_US) bn -> b, n, bin') python3-py_ecc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bn', '%description -l en_US bn -> b, n, bin') python-py_ecc.spec: W: no-%prep-section python-py_ecc.spec: W: no-%install-section python-py_ecc.spec: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 python3-py_ecc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bn', 'Summary(en_US) bn -> b, n, bin') python3-py_ecc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bn', '%description -l en_US bn -> b, n, bin') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/py_ecc/py_ecc-7.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 557461f42e57294d734305a30faf6b8903421651871e9cdeff8d8e67c6796c70 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 557461f42e57294d734305a30faf6b8903421651871e9cdeff8d8e67c6796c70 Requires -------- python3-py_ecc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(cached-property) python3.13dist(eth-typing) python3.13dist(eth-utils) Provides -------- python3-py_ecc: python-py_ecc python3-py_ecc python3.13-py_ecc python3.13dist(py-ecc) python3dist(py-ecc) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2354914 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Java, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) 7.0.1 is the latest release, though there are beta releases for 8.0.1 b) It seems man pages can be produced from the beta releases: https://github.com/ethereum/py_ecc/blob/main/docs/conf.py#L241 It does not block the review, but maybe nice to have these. c) Approved. Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354830 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-py_ecc
FEDORA-2025-396627d6f7 (python-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-396627d6f7
FEDORA-2025-3bf3062598 (python-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3bf3062598
FEDORA-2025-396627d6f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-396627d6f7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-396627d6f7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3bf3062598 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-2025-3bf3062598 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3bf3062598 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3bf3062598 (python-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-396627d6f7 (python-py_ecc-7.0.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.