spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto-1.3.0%5E20260305git1547f53-1.fc43.src.rpm description: Currently the following features are implemented. Many of these should only be used for integration with existing/legacy systems. * TLSv1.x socket wrappers * Exporting OS trust roots * Encryption/decryption * Generating public/private key pairs * Generating DH parameters * Signing and verification * Loading and normalizing DER and PEM formatted keys * Key derivation * Random byte generation fas: fed500 This is to unretire the package. Reproducible: Always
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: Review Request: python-oscrypto - As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build]. --- 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.
I'll review it.
Re-trigger autoreview spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto-1.3.0%5E20260305git1547f53-1.fc43.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10200639 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2444828-python-oscrypto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10200639-python-oscrypto/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.
I don't know why but it seems our tools cannot build it: ``` firefly ~: fedora-review -b 2444828 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 2444828 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 2444828 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20260305git1547f53-1.fc43.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/wbond/oscrypto/archive/1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3/oscrypto-1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3.tar.gz INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto/results INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/chroot-aliases.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg INFO: Build completed WARNING: Package python3-oscrypto-1.3.0^git1547f53-1.fc45 not built ERROR: 'No srpm found for python-oscrypto' (logs in /home/petro/.cache/fedora-review.log) firefly ~: cat /home/petro/.cache/fedora-review.log 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG fedora-review 0.11.0 05c5b26 2025-11-29 22:53:53 +0000 started 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Command line: /usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2444828 03-09 21:40 root INFO Processing bugzilla bug: 2444828 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Active settings after processing options 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG bz_url: https://bugzilla.redhat.com 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG _con_handler: <StreamHandler <stderr> (INFO)> 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG _log_config_done: True 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG cache: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG resultdir: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG init_done: True 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG uniqueext: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG configdir: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG log_level: 20 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG prebuilt: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG verbose: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG name: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG use_colors: True 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG session_log: /home/petro/.cache/fedora-review.log 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG bug: 2444828 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG url: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG copr_build_descriptor: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG list_checks: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG list_flags: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG list_plugins: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG version: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG flags: [] 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG repo: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG mock_config: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG no_report: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG nobuild: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG mock_options: --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG other_bz: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG plugins_arg: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG single: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG rpm_spec: False 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG exclude: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG checksum: sha256 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG plugins: {} 03-09 21:40 root INFO Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 2444828 03-09 21:40 root INFO --> SRPM url: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20260305git1547f53-1.fc43.src.rpm 03-09 21:40 root INFO --> Spec url: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto.spec 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG find_urls completed: 2.366 03-09 21:40 root INFO Using review directory: /home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Avoiding init of working mock root 03-09 21:40 root INFO Downloading .spec and .srpm files 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Url download completed: 5.055 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG --> /home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto/upstream : https://github.com/wbond/oscrypto/archive/1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3/oscrypto-1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3.tar.gz 03-09 21:40 root INFO Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/wbond/oscrypto/archive/1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3/oscrypto-1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3.tar.gz 03-09 21:40 root INFO Running checks and generating report 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Running check: CheckResultdir 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG CheckResultdir completed: 0.001 seconds 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Running check: CheckBuild 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Avoiding init of working mock root 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Mock command: mock, -r, fedora-rawhide-x86_64, --no-cleanup-after, --no-clean, --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True, --resultdir=/home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto/results, --chroot, --, rm -rf $(rpm --eval %_builddir)/* 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Mock output: INFO: mock.py version 6.6 starting (python version = 3.14.3, NVR = mock-6.6-1.fc43), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True --resultdir=/home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto/results --chroot -- 'rm -rf $(rpm --eval %_builddir)/*' Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 6.6 INFO: Mock Version: 6.6 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: Running in chroot: ['rm -rf $(rpm --eval %_builddir)/*'] Start: chroot ['rm -rf $(rpm --eval %_builddir)/*'] Finish: chroot ['rm -rf $(rpm --eval %_builddir)/*'] Finish: run None NoneType: None 03-09 21:40 root DEBUG Build command: "mock" "-r" "fedora-rawhide-x86_64" "--no-cleanup-after" "--no-clean" "--plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True" "--resultdir=/home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto/results" --rebuild /home/petro/2444828-python-oscrypto/srpm/python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20260305git1547f53-1.fc43.src.rpm 2>&1 | tee build.log | grep -E "Results and/or logs|ERROR" 03-09 21:41 root DEBUG _topdir: /builddir/build 03-09 21:41 root INFO Reading configuration from /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg 03-09 21:41 root INFO Reading configuration from /etc/mock/chroot-aliases.cfg 03-09 21:41 root INFO Reading configuration from /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg 03-09 21:41 root INFO Build completed 03-09 21:41 root WARNING Package python3-oscrypto-1.3.0^git1547f53-1.fc45 not built 03-09 21:41 root DEBUG CheckBuild completed: 27.628 seconds 03-09 21:41 root DEBUG Running check: CheckRpmlint 03-09 21:41 root DEBUG ReviewError: 'No srpm found for python-oscrypto' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 236, in run self._do_run(outfile) ~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 226, in _do_run self._do_report(outfile) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 99, in _do_report self._run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file, outfile) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 117, in _run_checks self.checks.run_checks(output=output, writedown=not Settings.no_report) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 389, in run_checks run_check(name) ~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 364, in run_check check.run() ~~~~~~~~~^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_build.py", line 236, in run no_errors, retval = self.rpmlint_rpms() ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_build.py", line 109, in rpmlint_rpms rpms = Mock.get_package_rpm_paths(self.spec, with_srpm=True) File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/mock.py", line 338, in get_package_rpm_paths result.append(get_package_srpm_path(spec)) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/FedoraReview/mock.py", line 327, in get_package_srpm_path raise ReviewError("No srpm found for " + spec.name) FedoraReview.review_error.ReviewError: 'No srpm found for python-oscrypto' 03-09 21:41 root ERROR ERROR: 'No srpm found for python-oscrypto' (logs in /home/petro/.cache/fedora-review.log) 03-09 21:41 root DEBUG Report completed: 39.758 seconds firefly ~: ```
Sorry, for the upload error. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143253032 spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.fc43.src.rpm
I can't find any issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-oscrypto See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^^^ Correct. This it re-review. ===== 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 (MIT). [x]: Package owns 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 does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No separate development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No extremely large documentation files. Note: Documentation size is 13922 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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]: 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.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/tmp2liz972_')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-oscrypto.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s ^^^ That's intentional 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 python3-oscrypto.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wbond/oscrypto/archive/1547f535001ba568b239b8797465536759c742a3/oscrypto-1547f53.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5855d4cc18172513c6b2c6dde00b89731faa907c7003d4965862f2f2e0fb9ae4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5855d4cc18172513c6b2c6dde00b89731faa907c7003d4965862f2f2e0fb9ae4 Requires -------- python3-oscrypto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ca-certificates openssl-libs python(abi) python3.14dist(asn1crypto) Provides -------- python3-oscrypto: python-oscrypto python3-oscrypto python3.14-oscrypto python3.14dist(oscrypto) python3dist(oscrypto) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2444828 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
FEDORA-2026-df69662010 (python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-df69662010
Thanks for the review.
FEDORA-2026-777970e3c3 (python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-777970e3c3
FEDORA-2026-777970e3c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-777970e3c3` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-777970e3c3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-df69662010 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-df69662010` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-df69662010 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-777970e3c3 (python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-df69662010 (python-oscrypto-1.3.0^20230823git1547f53-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.