Bug 2372326 - Review Request: python-oldmemo - Backend implementation of the namespace `eu.siacs.conversations.axolotl`
Summary: Review Request: python-oldmemo - Backend implementation of the namespace `eu....
Keywords:
Status: POST
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/Syndace/python-old...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-06-11 17:19 UTC by Benson Muite
Modified: 2025-06-12 11:30 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Benson Muite 2025-06-11 17:19:49 UTC
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oldmemo.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oldmemo-1.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

description:
Backend implementation for python-omemo, equipping python-omemo with support for
OMEMO under the namespace eu.siacs.conversations.axolotl (casually/jokingly
referred to as "oldmemo").

This repository is based on python-twomemo and will be rebased on top of new
commits to that repository regularly, so expect commit hashes to be unstable.
For the same reason, release tags might not be available or point to
non-existing commit hashes.

fas: fed500

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-06-11 17:26:48 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9153597
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2372326-python-oldmemo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09153597-python-oldmemo/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.

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2025-06-12 11:30:13 UTC
The package is APPROVED since I found nothing that “MUST” be changed, but I did have some feedback, below.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== Issues =====

- Upstream has clarified that they consider the code is “de facto”
  AGPL-3.0-only, but they are now considering switching to an explicit
  AGPL-3.0-or-later. The License tag is already correct (so this does
  not block approval), but please update the comment.

- While relax-protobuf.patch is obviously justified as a necessary response
  to our outdated protobuf, and it makes sense for it to be downstream-only
  (because this is really just our problem), the patch should have a comment
  explaining that. This is a SHOULD, so it does not block approval.

- The second paragraph of the description, which talks about the upstream
  source repository and its tags and commit hashes, is not relevant to RPM
  package users and should be removed.

- This comment should have been removed:

    # Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora

- This package will not build in Rawhide since the Python 3.14 side tag was
  merged, due to at least the following issues:

    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372013
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371871
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372199
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2343969

  I am approving this package based on the state of Rawhide before the Python
  3.14 side tag merge, working under the assumption that the dependency issues
  will be resolved and that the package itself works with Python 3.14 or can
  be made to do so.

===== Notes =====

- I do question if the approach to building Sphinx docs as texinfo and
  producing Docbook XML files for packaging is worthwhile, but everything you
  are doing appears to be consistent with packaging guidelines.

===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Affero General Public License
     v3.0", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0". 28
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/2372326-python-oldmemo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

     $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-oldmemo-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm 
     /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/oldmemo-1.1.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.13
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/help/en(libstrophe-doc, novelwriter-doc, python-slixmpp-
     doc, python3-colorspacious, profanity-doc, python3-doubleratchet,
     python3-tablib, thorvg-doc, python3-androguard, python3-xeddsa)

     Directory co-ownership seems appropriate here, although if this is a
     sufficiently standard location for installing and accessing help files,
     you should consider asking to have it owned by the filesystem package.

[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 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 2409 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

     Spurious; fedora-review has mistaken makeinfo for make.

[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-oldmemo , python3-oldmemo+xml
[?]: Package functions as described.

     Upstream provides no tests.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

     While relax-protobuf.patch is obviously justified as a necessary response
     to our outdated protobuf, and it makes sense for it to be downstream-only
     (because this is really just our problem), the patch should have a comment
     explaining that.

[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Upstream provides no tests. An import-only smoke test succeeds.

[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-oldmemo-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python3-oldmemo+xml-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python-oldmemo-1.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpigoeio7u')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('eu', 'Summary(en_US) eu -> EU, Eu, e')
python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('siacs', 'Summary(en_US) siacs -> sics, sacs, amnesiacs')
python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('omemo', '%description -l en_US omemo -> memo, o memo, om emo')
python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('eu', '%description -l en_US eu -> EU, Eu, e')
python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('siacs', '%description -l en_US siacs -> sics, sacs, amnesiacs')
python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('twomemo', '%description -l en_US twomemo -> two memo, two-memo, twosome')
python-oldmemo.src: E: spelling-error ('rebased', '%description -l en_US rebased -> rebated, debased, re based')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eu', 'Summary(en_US) eu -> EU, Eu, e')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('siacs', 'Summary(en_US) siacs -> sics, sacs, amnesiacs')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('omemo', '%description -l en_US omemo -> memo, o memo, om emo')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eu', '%description -l en_US eu -> EU, Eu, e')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('siacs', '%description -l en_US siacs -> sics, sacs, amnesiacs')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('twomemo', '%description -l en_US twomemo -> two memo, two-memo, twosome')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rebased', '%description -l en_US rebased -> rebated, debased, re based')
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 0 warnings, 40 filtered, 14 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: 2

python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eu', 'Summary(en_US) eu -> EU, Eu, e')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('siacs', 'Summary(en_US) siacs -> sics, sacs, amnesiacs')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('omemo', '%description -l en_US omemo -> memo, o memo, om emo')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eu', '%description -l en_US eu -> EU, Eu, e')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('siacs', '%description -l en_US siacs -> sics, sacs, amnesiacs')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('twomemo', '%description -l en_US twomemo -> two memo, two-memo, twosome')
python3-oldmemo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rebased', '%description -l en_US rebased -> rebated, debased, re based')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 0 warnings, 32 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Syndace/python-oldmemo/archive/v1.1.0/python-oldmemo-1.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 765f66c3124969cd4c46dd0acf3eeea349b60ad6b2fa45a313b1357365f10d21
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 765f66c3124969cd4c46dd0acf3eeea349b60ad6b2fa45a313b1357365f10d21


Requires
--------
python3-oldmemo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.13dist(doubleratchet) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(doubleratchet) >= 1)
    (python3.13dist(omemo) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(omemo) >= 1)
    (python3.13dist(x3dh) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(x3dh) >= 1)
    (python3.13dist(xeddsa) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(xeddsa) >= 1)
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(cryptography)
    python3.13dist(protobuf)
    python3.13dist(typing-extensions)

python3-oldmemo+xml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-oldmemo
    python3.13dist(xmlschema)



Provides
--------
python3-oldmemo:
    python-oldmemo
    python3-oldmemo
    python3.13-oldmemo
    python3.13dist(oldmemo)
    python3dist(oldmemo)

python3-oldmemo+xml:
    python-oldmemo+xml
    python3-oldmemo+xml
    python3.13-oldmemo+xml
    python3.13dist(oldmemo[xml])
    python3dist(oldmemo[xml])



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2372326
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Java, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


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