https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2521853
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2521853 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202521853%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
