Bug 2101458

Unofficial review:

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

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



===== 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", "MIT License". 31 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/starkbank-ecdsa/2101458-starkbank-ecdsa/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
     packages/tests(python3-flatpak-module-tools, python3-ipmi),
     /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__pycache__(python3-flatpak-
     module-tools, python3-ipmi)
[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).
[?]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[?]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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.
[?]: 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).
[?]: 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.
     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.
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-python/archive/v2.0.3/ecdsa-python-2.0.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 35d9c1504069e7afb22427f0876249633056b54bcd4
52a528b40f174b4b3e664
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35d9c1504069e7afb22427f0876249633056b54bcd4
52a528b40f174b4b3e664


Requires
--------
starkbank-ecdsa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
starkbank-ecdsa:
    python3.11dist(starkbank-ecdsa)
    python3dist(starkbank-ecdsa)
    starkbank-ecdsa



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2101458
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


Comments:
1) Adding a Koji or Copr build is helpful to verify it works on all required architectures.
2) Should the package be named python-starkbank-ecdsa https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming ?
3) Is egg-info needed? It is removed in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ecdsa/blob/rawhide/f/python-ecdsa.spec  see also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dist_info_metadata
4) Tests are packaged with the main library. Should these be included with the documentation?
5) Maybe OpenSSL should be added as a weak depends?

Hi there, thank you for the comments.
I did change the spec file and since OpenSSL is @system package I'm not sure about adding as weak dep?
 
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04597472-python-starkbank-ecdsa/python-starkbank-ecdsa.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04597472-python-starkbank-ecdsa/python-starkbank-ecdsa-2.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm

The %py_provides %{py3_name} in the main package section does nothing.


The %descriptioin could be longer.


find_packages(exclude=["tests"]) should be offered upstream.


%license LICENSE is duplicated:

$ rpm -qpl --licensefiles python3-starkbank-ecdsa-2.0.3-1.fc37.noarch.rpm 
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/starkbank_ecdsa-2.0.3.dist-info/LICENSE
/usr/share/licenses/python3-starkbank-ecdsa/LICENSE



>> Maybe OpenSSL should be added as a weak depends?
> since OpenSSL is @system package I'm not sure about adding as weak dep?

Why adding it as a weak dep? Doesn't matter if it is a @system package or not. It matters whether it is directly required by this package or not. Is it?

rpmlint says:

python-starkbank-ecdsa.spec:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 15)
python-starkbank-ecdsa.spec:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 15)

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IQELSXUUNQFYYQ2JU3NOWLF2TOI7DEYZ/

Hi there, I changed the spec file as you recommended and openssl not directly required bytheway.

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04597925-python-starkbank-ecdsa/python-starkbank-ecdsa.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04597925-python-starkbank-ecdsa/python-starkbank-ecdsa-2.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm

Thank you.

And PR sent to upstream: https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-python/pull/35

The C version seems to be packaged
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/libsecp256k1/libsecp256k1/
and as it also is in OpenSSL so this seems ok.  It is expected to
be used for web signing:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8812/
What other information is required for a confirmation and removal
of the legal block?

A reply from Legal at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IQELSXUUNQFYYQ2JU3NOWLF2TOI7DEYZ/ is required. Ben, could you please help?

I forwarded this to rfontana and set needinfo here as well.

I will have to forward this to another person on the Red Hat legal team.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Happy to review.