Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/python-crate-ingredients.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/python-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://codeberg.org/decathorpe/ingredients Description: This package contains Python bindings for the ingredients crate, which implements checks for the contents ("ingredients") of published Rust crates. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149424607
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10897449 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2521853-python-crate-ingredients/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10897449-python-crate-ingredients/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 ===== Issues ==== - The LICENSE.dependencies file is not included in the binary RPMs. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE You can include it manually with %license, or more elegantly, move the %pyproject_wheel call to the bottom of the %build section, after you have written LICENSE.dependencies. That approach will give you: $ rpm -qL -p results_python-crate-ingredients/0.3.0/1.fc46/python3-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.dependencies - In %check, you might consider adding a comment that all tests currently require network access. ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - You may, if you like, remove the explicit BuildRequires: python3-devel, since %pyproject_buildrequires suffices. See https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379/ and https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384/. The explicit BuildRequires is not incorrect and does not hurt anything. - I generally feel that defining pypi_name, srcname, modname, or similar macros just adds noise to the spec file and makes it harder to read for little or no benefit. I favor simply writing out the name in question. There is no rule about this, and you are free to keep the macro indirection if you like it. - It’s neat to see maturin 1.14 producing a CycloneDX SBOM and including it in the metadata: /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.dist-info/sboms/crate-ingredients.cyclonedx.json - rpmlint notes: python3-crate-ingredients.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients/_rust.cpython-315-x86_64-linux-gnu.so SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list This is tricky, because this API call isn’t directly in the package’s source code. The symbol SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list is linked from the shared library, but we aren’t able to easily determine whether or when it is actually called, or with what parameters. As noted in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/#_cc_applications, calling it with "PROFILE=SYSTEM" would be just fine. I used the strings tool on the compiled Python extension and couldn’t find either PROFILE=SYSTEM or anything that looked like a hard-coded cipher list. It would be nice to figure out whether this is really correct or not, but at least I think we can say that *if* there is a problem, then the fix is almost certainly in one of this package’s crate dependencies rather than in this package itself. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. The sole unversioned .so file is a properly-installed Python extension module and is not in the default linker path: /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients/_rust.cpython-315-x86_64-linux-gnu.so 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2521853-python-crate- ingredients/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.15, /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages Spurious diagnostic: python3-libs owns these [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. The upstream-bundled crate(ingredients) is correctly removed in %prep to demonstrate that is not used in the build. [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. It’s fairly obvious that the explicit Requires on cargo and git-core are because these are used by calling their command-line tools. I don’t think these require additional documentation. [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 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 2183 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: [-]: 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. Imitating one of the upstream smoke tests in a chroot with network enabled: >>> import crate_ingredients as ci >>> client = ci.RegistryClient.crates_io("crate_ingredients.py") >>> crate1 = client.download("syn", "3.0.0") >>> crate2 = client.download("syn", "3.0.2") >>> diff = crate1.diff(crate2, diff_size_limit=2*1024*1024) >>> print(diff) info: crate version changed from '3.0.0' to '3.0.2' info: file at path 'README.md' changed info: file at path 'src/buffer.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/data.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/error.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/expr.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/generics.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/item.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/lib.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/token.rs' changed info: file at path 'src/ty.rs' changed info: file at path 'tests/repo/mod.rs' changed info: file at path 'tests/test_item.rs' changed This seems reasonable. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149424607 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. All upstream tests currently require network access. You might consider a note to this effect. You do have an import test, which is required when no other tests are available and is usually worthwhile even if they are. [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]: 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-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm python-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46.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/tmpq7ynsvq2')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-crate-ingredients.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients/_rust.cpython-315-x86_64-linux-gnu.so SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 1 python3-crate-ingredients.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients/_rust.cpython-315-x86_64-linux-gnu.so SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-crate-ingredients: /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients/_rust.cpython-315-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/crate_ingredients/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 584ed8e2798ec72510d6840b8d73290f14ed26bec1312b14c29a2d0d064453d1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 584ed8e2798ec72510d6840b8d73290f14ed26bec1312b14c29a2d0d064453d1 Requires -------- python3-crate-ingredients (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo git-core ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4(OPENSSL_4.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.4()(64bit) libssl.so.4(OPENSSL_4.0.0)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-crate-ingredients: python-crate-ingredients python3-crate-ingredients python3-crate-ingredients(x86-64) python3.15-crate-ingredients python3.15dist(crate-ingredients) python3dist(crate-ingredients) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2521853 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, R, PHP, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > Package Review > ============== Thanks for taking a look! > ===== Issues ==== > > - The LICENSE.dependencies file is not included in the binary RPMs. Thanks for the suggestion, I have moved %pyproject_wheel to the bottom of %build. > - In %check, you might consider adding a comment that all tests currently > require network access. Good point, I can add a comment to that effect. Note that there *would* be at least "doctests", but they fail to compile with linker errors on ppc64le. I don't know *why* libpython.so symbols don't get linked to the test executable *only on this architecture*, but there are a handful of open and closed issues in the pyo3 issue tracker about "undefined reference" issues when running "cargo test" for a PyO3 cdylib. Weirdly enough, "cargo test" does compile and run the doctests, but "cargo test --doc" aborts with an error message claiming that "doctests can't be run for cdylib targets". :confused: > ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== > > - You may, if you like, remove the explicit BuildRequires: python3-devel, > since > %pyproject_buildrequires suffices. See > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379/ and > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384/. The explicit > BuildRequires is not incorrect and does not hurt anything. > > - I generally feel that defining pypi_name, srcname, modname, or similar > macros > just adds noise to the spec file and makes it harder to read for little or > no > benefit. I favor simply writing out the name in question. There is no rule > about this, and you are free to keep the macro indirection if you like it. I would agree in general, though in this case, it appears that I need to specify the "normalized" PyPI name with "_" as separator at least in two places - in the %pypi_source macro argument and in the %pyproject_save_files macro argument. Repeating the name twice wouldn't be that bad (especially since it won't change without a package name / upstream name change) though, I guess. > - rpmlint notes: > > python3-crate-ingredients.x86_64: W: > crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients/_rust.cpython-315- > x86_64-linux-gnu.so SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > > This is tricky, because this API call isn’t directly in the package’s > source > code. The symbol SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list is linked from the shared library, > but we aren’t able to easily determine whether or when it is actually > called, > or with what parameters. As noted in > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/ > #_cc_applications, > calling it with "PROFILE=SYSTEM" would be just fine. I used the strings > tool > on the compiled Python extension and couldn’t find either PROFILE=SYSTEM or > anything that looked like a hard-coded cipher list. > > It would be nice to figure out whether this is really correct or not, but > at > least I think we can say that *if* there is a problem, then the fix is > almost > certainly in one of this package’s crate dependencies rather than in this > package itself. As far as I can tell, this is basically always a false positive. There aren't any code paths (that I have found) from reqwest -> native-tls -> openssl that call SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list. And applications that use the default SSL context from the "openssl" crate use PROFILE=SYSTEM: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-openssl/blob/rawhide/f/0001-set-PROFILE-SYSTEM-as-default-cipher-list.patch > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > It’s fairly obvious that the explicit Requires on cargo and git-core are > because these are used by calling their command-line tools. I don’t > think > these require additional documentation. I'll add a comment to the .spec file. The README documents that they're hard requirements, but documenting it in the .spec file too won't hurt.
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/python-crate-ingredients.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/python-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2155625 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10897449 to 10903493
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10903493 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2521853-python-crate-ingredients/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10903493-python-crate-ingredients/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.
Looking at the spec-file diff, rather than doing a full re-review: - You dropped the pypi_name macro indirection, which I suggested but is a matter of personal preference - You added comments for the manual Requires on cargo and git-core, which I thought wasn’t required but which is nevertheless helpful - You added a comment explaining why %cargo_generate_buildrequires needs -a and -t, which again isn’t required but is nice - You moved %pyproject_wheel to the end of %build, which fixed the unpackaged LICENSE.dependencies: $ rpm -qL -p ./results/python3-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/crate_ingredients-0.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.dependencies - You added a comment explaining why tests can’t be run. All of these changes are useful and correct. The fedora-review template doesn’t flag any new potential issues, and there are no new rpmlint messages. Everything from the “Issues” section of the previous review has been dealt with. The package is therefore APPROVED. ---- The only thing I have left to say is that, since the linking issues for doctests are specific to ppc64le, you could do something like this: %check # run import check only: # * pytest unit tests require internet access # * cargo test fails to compile doctests for cdylib targets on ppc64le %pyproject_check_import %ifnarch %{power64} %cargo_test %endif That seemed to work fine in a quick scratch-build, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149489161. On the other hand, it looks like it didn’t actually find any doctests: test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Thanks a lot for the review! In the end, I did think all your suggestions were good ones, so I implemented them all. :) It's a bit annoying that tests are so hard to run here, I'll think about adding at least *some* upstream that can be run without running afoul of ancient pyo3 / linker bugs.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-crate-ingredients Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-27611e80d1 (python-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-27611e80d1
FEDORA-2026-27611e80d1 (python-crate-ingredients-0.3.0-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.