https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785 Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |epel7 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL -- 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=1372785 --- Comment #2 from Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org&gt; --- Thanks for taking a look at this. It's reasonably minimal editing from the base el7 pyOpenSSL src.rpm, so I take no responsibility for the lack of license file. If it's in the el7 srpm, I'll see about making sure it's not deleted. Please keep in mind this is for EPEL only, so not all the fedora enhancements are available. That said, I'll work through your suggestions. -- 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=1372785 Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|epel7 |rawhide Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |orion(a)cora.nwra.com Product|Fedora EPEL |Fedora Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- I'm resetting the product to Fedora, because you can't sync to a Fedora EPEL bug in pkgdb when you go to add the component. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Non UTF-8 file - Latest is 0.14 - Are there tests that can be run? - You shouldn't need BR python-devel. - You really don't need to conditionally define python3_pkgversion - it's defined everywhere, and this in an EPEL only package anyway. - There are no comments with the patches indicating what they do or linking to any upstream bug reports - doc sub-package needs %license - Update the URL ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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]: 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. [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* Public domain". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/python3-pyOpenSSL-0.13.1/review- python3-pyOpenSSL/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: python34-pyOpenSSL-0.13.1-4.el7.x86_64.rpm python34-pyOpenSSL-doc-0.13.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm python3-pyOpenSSL-0.13.1-4.el7.src.rpm python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: W: no-documentation python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/SSL.cpython-34m.so 0775L python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/rand.cpython-34m.so 0775L python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/crypto.cpython-34m.so 0775L python34-pyOpenSSL-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python34-pyOpenSSL-doc-0.13.1/pyOpenSSL.tex Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python3-pyOpenSSL-debuginfo-0.13.1-4.el7.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python34-pyOpenSSL-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python34-pyOpenSSL-doc-0.13.1/pyOpenSSL.tex python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: W: no-documentation python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/SSL.cpython-34m.so 0775L python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/rand.cpython-34m.so 0775L python34-pyOpenSSL.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/crypto.cpython-34m.so 0775L Requires -------- python34-pyOpenSSL-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python34-pyOpenSSL (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python34-pyOpenSSL-doc: python34-pyOpenSSL-doc python34-pyOpenSSL: python34-pyOpenSSL python34-pyOpenSSL(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python34-pyOpenSSL: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/SSL.cpython-34m.so python34-pyOpenSSL: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/crypto.cpython-34m.so python34-pyOpenSSL: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/OpenSSL/rand.cpython-34m.so Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyOpenSSL/pyOpenSSL-0.13.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ba06ec710414f6dfe5566ec24c81882547c3e6fc48458d64315b73a0d5142fdb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba06ec710414f6dfe5566ec24c81882547c3e6fc48458d64315b73a0d5142fdb Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python3-pyOpenSSL -m epel-7-x86_64 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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=1372785 --- Comment #6 from Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org&gt; --- Correct. I was intentionally matching what available for python 2.x in the base distro (and initially starting from that srpm). I wanted to keep the features/function consistent between the two. If we want to say that "python3 is newer and so the tooling should be newer" I could certainly be convinced. -- 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=1372785 --- Comment #8 from Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org&gt; --- The newer version (16.1.0) has some updated BuildRequires that I need to work through. Would it be possible to proceed with the current el7 version, and I'll work to bump to the newer version afterward? -- 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=1372785 --- Comment #10 from Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org&gt; --- Okay. In order to do this, we'll need a python3-cryptography package. python-cryptography is tagged for epel7, but is also a base package. What would you recommend to move forward? Adapting the existing python-cryptography to only produce a python34-* package, or creating a new package entirely, as I'm working to do with python3-pyOpenSSL? -- 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=1372785 --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)nwra.com&gt; --- So, python3-cryptography 1.7.2 is now in EPEL7. So we can get 17.0.0 in. If we update it to 1.9 we could get in 17.3.0, see bug #1540756. https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyOpenSSL.spec https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyOpenSSL-17.0.0-1.el7.sr... https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyOpenSSL-17.3.0-1.el7.sr... -- 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=1372785 --- Comment #13 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)nwra.com&gt; --- Ping - Jim are you still interested in this? -- 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