[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-07-08 12:01:49 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2011-07-08 12:01:42 EDT --- python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 20:30:56 EDT --- python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2011-06-14 14:26:39 EDT --- python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-13 18:12:16 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Andy Grimm 2011-06-13 16:36:16 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-crypto Short Description: Cryptography library for Python Owners: arg gholms Branches: el5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #15 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-06-13 15:12:58 EDT --- I just sponsored Andy. Lifting FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Garrett Holmstrom changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #14 from Garrett Holmstrom 2011-05-17 13:21:00 EDT --- Andy, before you request any branches you need to get sponsored into the packager group. Thankfully, Paul is a sponsor, so all you have to do is convince him to sponsor you. :) Blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@city-fan.org Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Paul Howarth 2011-05-17 11:19:43 EDT --- rpmlint output == python26-crypto.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python26-crypto-2.3/LEGAL/copy/stmts/Paul_Swartz.mbox python26-crypto.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/doc/python26-crypto-2.3/LEGAL/copy/LICENSE.orig The first of these is a set of emails, with explicit encoding. The second is a false positive - the file originates upstream and not from a patch. review checklist - rpmlint OK (see above) - package and spec naming follows convention for python26 packages in EPEL - package meets guidelines - license is OK for Fedora and matches upstream (see upstream COPYRIGHT file) - upstream licensing texts included in %doc - spec file written in English and is legible - source matches upstream - package builds find in mock for EPEL-5 - buildreqs ok - no locale data to worry about - package does not include shared libraries in dynamic linker's default paths - package does not bundle copies of system libraries - package is not intended to be relocatable - no directory ownership issues - no duplicate files - file permissions are fine - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs included - docs don't affect runtime - no devel files included - not a GUI app so no desktop file needed - filenames are all valid UTF-8 - upstream test suite and benchmark script run in %check - no scriptlets needed or included - no subpackages warranted or created - no file dependencies - no binaries/scripts included, so no manpages warranted All in all, no problems found. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #12 from Andy Grimm 2011-05-11 11:38:53 EDT --- Ah, I did see the comment in email about macros longer than the things they replace. :-) So now we have: SPEC: http://www.grimmslanding.org/rpms/python26-crypto.spec SRPM: http://www.grimmslanding.org/rpms/python26-crypto-2.3-5.el5.src.rpm Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #11 from Paul Howarth 2011-05-11 09:51:29 EDT --- I've updated python-crypto in Rawhide to use upstream's re-rolled tarball and to get rid of macros for system commands. Rebase your spec on that and then I'll review it when I can find a few spare jiffies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #10 from Andy Grimm 2011-05-11 06:13:13 EDT --- I'm not sure what to do next on this issue. Do I need to post a spec / srpm with either Paul's patch or mine applied? Does anyone have feedback on my patch? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||702677 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #9 from Andy Grimm 2011-05-06 09:44:35 EDT --- Created attachment 497358 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=497358 Revised Simplifications All of your suggestions make sense; the reason I left pythonver from the original recipe was to keep things as similar as possible to the python-crypto master (it might make merges easier later). Rather than remove it and alter the %install section, I replaced pybasever with pythonver in this similar patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #8 from Paul Howarth 2011-05-05 16:38:30 EDT --- Created attachment 497224 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=497224 Some simplifications I think there are some other simplifications that can be made too: %pybasever is defined in the spec so its use doesn't need to be conditionalized %pythonver can be replaced by %pybasever since they have the same value No need to evaluate the python-abi value as we're defining it as %pybasever ourselves No need to specify a version requirement for python26-devel as any version will be OK Attached patch implements these suggestions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth 2011-05-05 14:36:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Updated to 2.3 and posted here (and my apologies for Google's content-type > issue on the spec file): > > SRPM: > https://www.grimmslanding.org/rpms/python26-crypto-2.3-4.el5.src.rpm > > SPEC: > https://www.grimmslanding.org/rpms/python26-crypto.spec > > I tried to change the spec as little as possible from the current version in > he > python-crypto master branch. However, filter_provides_in obviously doesn't do > anything in rpm 4.4.x, and I wasn't sure whether I should leave that in. > Also, > I thought about overriding _provides to white out the shared lib deps, but did > not. (This practice is mentioned in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterRpmAutoReqProvFiltering , but it > doesn't seem to be common in EPEL). > Thoughts? To filter those you'd need to manually include the provides filter included in /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros (redhat-rpm-config package) in Fedora. I wouldn't bother, and I'd strip out the existing provides filtering code as it has no effect in EPEL < 6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #6 from Andy Grimm 2011-05-05 12:53:59 EDT --- Updated to 2.3 and posted here (and my apologies for Google's content-type issue on the spec file): SRPM: https://www.grimmslanding.org/rpms/python26-crypto-2.3-4.el5.src.rpm SPEC: https://www.grimmslanding.org/rpms/python26-crypto.spec I tried to change the spec as little as possible from the current version in he python-crypto master branch. However, filter_provides_in obviously doesn't do anything in rpm 4.4.x, and I wasn't sure whether I should leave that in. Also, I thought about overriding _provides to white out the shared lib deps, but did not. (This practice is mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterRpmAutoReqProvFiltering , but it doesn't seem to be common in EPEL). Thoughts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #5 from Andy Grimm 2011-05-04 12:15:40 EDT --- That's fine. It makes little difference to me, as I only need it as a prerequisite for paramiko. I can test out a 2.3 build and post that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalc...@redhat.com, ||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth 2011-05-04 05:38:59 EDT --- (python-crypto maintainer here) Another possibility, given that python26-crypto doesn't currently exist and the EPEL-5 python-crypto package is quite old (2.0.1; current upstream is 2.3) would be to make the new python26-crypto package use the current upstream release, as that is likely to be more useful to python26 users? That would of course need a new review as it would be a new package rather than a subpackage of the existing python-crypto package. I've no objection to the subpackage approach other than that I think a more recent version would be a better option going forward given that it's essentially a new package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-04-30 17:25:58 EDT --- Yeah, I would only pursue this route if the python-crypto maintainer objects. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm 2011-04-30 15:03:41 EDT --- If that's an accepted practice in EPEL, then by all means, it can be added as a subpackage. I do not expect the source of this package to diverge from python-crypto at all. Should I just contact the maintainers of that package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700667] Review Request python26-crypto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700667 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-04-30 14:23:43 EDT --- Is it practical to carry this as a separate package? Given that the version and code is identical, perhaps this could be added to the python-crypto package (in EPEL) as a subpackage, much in the same way that some python3 packages are generated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
