[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-08-28 08:16:13



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-scrypt

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441



--- Comment #5 from Alfredo Moralejo  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1458441-python-
 scrypt/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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).
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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.
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-scrypt , python3-scrypt , python-scrypt-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as 

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Alfredo Moralejo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441



--- Comment #4 from Alfredo Moralejo  ---

You used "bundled(script)", it should be bundled(scrypt) :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-scrypt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-scrypt-0.8.0-2.fc26.src.rpm

Fixed, as for the virtual provides, script does not provide any library but a
command-line, I'm not sure there are precedents. But anyway, I added them, it
can be removed later without consequences.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441



--- Comment #2 from Alfredo Moralejo  ---
%{description} macro is not properly expanded in subpackages:

$ rpm -qip python2-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
Name: python2-scrypt
Version : 0.8.0
Release : 1.fc27
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: (not installed)
Group   : Unspecified
Size: 62205
License : BSD
Signature   : (none)
Source RPM  : python-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
Build Date  : Tue 06 Jun 2017 04:59:47 PM CEST
Build Host  : faemino
Relocations : (not relocatable)
URL : http://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt
Summary : Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library
Description :
%{description}

Could you fix that, please?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Alfredo Moralejo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-script - Bindings|python-scrypt - Bindings
   |for the scrypt key  |for the scrypt key
   |derivation function library |derivation function library



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org