https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440337
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The file curve25519/curve/curve25519-donna.c is explicitly BSD-3-Clause and is copied from https://code.google.com/archive/p/curve25519-donna/, also available at https://github.com/agl/curve25519-donna, and on PyPI at https://pypi.org/project/curve25519-donna/. At least curve25519/curve25519module.c is from the same library, and therefore is also BSD-3-Clause. I didn’t try to analyze whether any of these bundled sources was modified from the upstream versions. Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling, you are supposed to publicly ask your upstream about a path to using a system copy of the bundled library. It seems like unbundling is probably infeasible, because curve25519-donna doesn’t look like it is currently maintained; the C code isn’t organized for packaging as a shared library; and the compiled Python extension in this library also does things that https://pypi.org/project/curve25519-donna/ doesn’t do. If there is no reasonable path to unbundling, then you may add something like this: # At least curve25519/curve/curve25519-donna.c and # curve25519/curve25519module.c are from # https://code.google.com/archive/p/curve25519-donna/ / # https://github.com/agl/curve25519-donna, corresponding to # https://pypi.org/project/curve25519-donna/. # # (Insert link to upstream contact and any other comments on the prospects, # or lack thereof, for unbundling.) Provides: bundled(python3dist(curve25519-donna)) The package’s license expression needs to reflect the BSD-3-Clause code: # The entire source is GPL-3.0-or-later, except that most or all of the # contents of curve25519/ are from https://pypi.org/project/curve25519-donna/ # and are BSD-3-Clause. License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause - The explicit "BuildRequires: python3-devel" is not required when you have %pyproject_buildrequires, but it’s not harmful and you are not required to remove it. - The word “deviceliste” in the description looks like a typo for “devicelist” (possibly jargon or a term of art) or “device list” (standard English). Please correct the typo and point it out upstream. - Please run the tests if possible; if not possible or not practical, please comment in the spec file explaining why not. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License". 183 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2440337-python-omemo- dr/licensecheck.txt BSD-3-Clause code is not accounted for. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.14, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages Spurious diagnostic; python3-libs owns these. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. Bundling of python3dist(curve25519-donna) is not documented. [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. [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 3118 bytes in 2 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). [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142942868 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. The minimal necessary import “smoke test” is present, but the source archive contains a test suite. Please either run it or justify why it doesn’t make sense to do so. [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-omemo-dr-1.2.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm python-omemo-dr-1.2.0-1.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/tmpz3ieyx1w')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-omemo-dr.src: E: spelling-error ('deviceliste', '%description -l en_US deviceliste -> videlicet') python3-omemo-dr.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deviceliste', '%description -l en_US deviceliste -> videlicet') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 30 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s 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-omemo-dr.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deviceliste', '%description -l en_US deviceliste -> videlicet') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-omemo-dr: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/omemo_dr/_curve.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/omemo-dr/-/archive/v1.2.0/omemo-dr-v1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 07c13eec1e35c29bf3cd7d2db632da5292e3eeb6d4f3a9b377d708b03dd5e2e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 07c13eec1e35c29bf3cd7d2db632da5292e3eeb6d4f3a9b377d708b03dd5e2e4 Requires -------- python3-omemo-dr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.14dist(cryptography) python3.14dist(protobuf) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-omemo-dr: python-omemo-dr python3-omemo-dr python3-omemo-dr(x86-64) python3.14-omemo-dr python3.14dist(omemo-dr) python3dist(omemo-dr) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440337 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440337 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202440337%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ 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
