Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhlavink/gpgmesplit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10095406-gpgmepy/gpgmepy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhlavink/gpgmesplit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10095406-gpgmepy/gpgmepy-2.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Python bindings to the GPGME API of the GnuPG cryptography library. Fedora Account System Username: mhlavink Available in copr, so following can be used to obtain fedora review report: $ fedora-review --prebuilt --rpm-spec --cache --copr-build 10095406 NOTE: currently, gpgmepy is build from gpgme package, but since gpgme 2.0 language bindings are no longer part of main tarball, but separate sources and require gpgme already installed in system for compilation. This needs hacks to do atm. gpgmepy (and other gpgme language bindings) are being moved to separate packages.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10096025 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2437042-gpgmepy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10096025-gpgmepy/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 [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Unfortunately, the package FTBFS on aarch64 and ppc64le because these arches do not support multilib: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142122169 Off-topic: You may consider using the `%multilib_fix_c_header` macro in gpgme to make the spec easier to read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Architecture_dependent_header_files Also `multilib-rpm-config`, provides the `%multilib_capable` macro which may be useful in gpgmepy spec as well. Alternatively, we should investigate the issue that the build script can't handle gpgme.h, as mentioned in the spec file. Nits: * gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0} ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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 6090 bytes in 4 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-gpg-2.0.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm gpgmepy-2.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmp3iqgle29')] checks: 32, packages: 2 gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0} python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/gpg-2.0.0.dist-info/licenses/COPYING python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/gpg-2.0.0.dist-info/licenses/COPYING.LESSER python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python3-gpg/COPYING python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python3-gpg/COPYING.LESSER 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-gpg". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-gpg: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/gpg/_gpgme.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgmepy/gpgmepy-2.0.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 07e1265648ff51da238c9af7a18b3f1dc7b0c66b4f21a72f27c74b396cd3336d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 07e1265648ff51da238c9af7a18b3f1dc7b0c66b4f21a72f27c74b396cd3336d https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgmepy/gpgmepy-2.0.0.tar.bz2.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 564885c7944e3f0b2b4ec2aca8a307e2cda4a629a383ccaea85d968e37edf171 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 564885c7944e3f0b2b4ec2aca8a307e2cda4a629a383ccaea85d968e37edf171 https://gnupg.org/signature_key.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d Requires -------- python3-gpg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgpgme.so.45()(64bit) libgpgme.so.45(GPGME_1.0)(64bit) libgpgme.so.45(GPGME_1.1)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-gpg: python-gpg python3-gpg python3-gpg(x86-64) python3.14-gpg python3.14dist(gpg) python3dist(gpg) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name gpgmepy --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Java, Ocaml, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I've originally tested in copr for only a subset of architectures so I've missed that. I've now rebuild this package (and continue with others) for all architectures. There is no easy way how to make the build process work with multiarch hack. Long story short, build process uses include file as a source, but does not C-preprocess it, so it does not include anything which is why using ifdef include wrapper won't work. The gpgme.h file must be the gpgme.h file, not a wrapper. Anyway, the issue is fixed now. Koji scratch build for all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142132862 Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mhlavink/gpgmesplit/build/10110405/ New files: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhlavink/gpgmesplit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10110405-gpgmepy/gpgmepy.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhlavink/gpgmesplit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10110405-gpgmepy/gpgmepy-2.0.0-1.fc45.src.rpm diff: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/mhlavink/gpgmesplit/gpgmepy.git/commit/?id=9ac73acc40931d5e02cd6a7a103bb4fd979a091d
Created attachment 2128822 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10096025 to 10110420
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10110420 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2437042-gpgmepy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10110420-gpgmepy/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 Thank you for the update, LGTM! Since this is not a split nor a rename and the new component has a clear upgrade path (albeit with an epoch bump), AFAIK no provides/obsoletes are needed. Approving. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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 6090 bytes in 4 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-gpg-2.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm gpgmepy-2.0.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpak3orbqq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2} gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} gpgmepy.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0} python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/gpg-2.0.0.dist-info/licenses/COPYING python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/gpg-2.0.0.dist-info/licenses/COPYING.LESSER python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python3-gpg/COPYING python3-gpg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python3-gpg/COPYING.LESSER 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-gpg". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-gpg: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/gpg/_gpgme.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgmepy/gpgmepy-2.0.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 07e1265648ff51da238c9af7a18b3f1dc7b0c66b4f21a72f27c74b396cd3336d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 07e1265648ff51da238c9af7a18b3f1dc7b0c66b4f21a72f27c74b396cd3336d https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgmepy/gpgmepy-2.0.0.tar.bz2.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 564885c7944e3f0b2b4ec2aca8a307e2cda4a629a383ccaea85d968e37edf171 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 564885c7944e3f0b2b4ec2aca8a307e2cda4a629a383ccaea85d968e37edf171 https://gnupg.org/signature_key.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8eef03be67f3d4f0be96a6356521721388ae6477866ac0a06d3cf63e84c89a7d Requires -------- python3-gpg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgpgme.so.45()(64bit) libgpgme.so.45(GPGME_1.0)(64bit) libgpgme.so.45(GPGME_1.1)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-gpg: python-gpg python3-gpg python3-gpg(x86-64) python3.14-gpg python3.14dist(gpg) python3dist(gpg) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name gpgmepy --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH