Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 663102 - Review Request: pyscard - python module adding smart cards support.
Summary: Review Request: pyscard - python module adding smart cards support.
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1125953
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-12-14 17:28 UTC by Andrew Elwell
Modified: 2014-08-01 12:31 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-08-01 12:13:51 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)
self performed review of spec / package (deleted)
2010-12-14 18:31 UTC, Andrew Elwell
no flags Details

Description Andrew Elwell 2010-12-14 17:28:22 UTC
Spec URL:

1st attempt at packaging for Fedora -- rpmbuild on my F14 box works ok, and I'm running the built rpm to try and get my touchatag reader working with RFIDIOt.

rpmlint on spec:
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint on src.rpm: 

pyscard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smartcard -> smart card, smart-card, smartness
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

upstream uses 'smartcard' in his text.

please note this is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor

Comment 1 Andrew Elwell 2010-12-14 18:31:32 UTC
Created attachment 468665 [details]
self performed review of spec / package

OK - I did my own self-test review (attached) -- please can a real reviewer point out where I'm incorrect?

Comment 2 Steve Traylen 2010-12-15 18:39:47 UTC
Hi Andrew,

This is looking pretty good and thorough for a first package.

Immediate things I notice, you are not compiling with correct compiler options,
look at the example CFLAGS settings on the Python guidelines page and

for a more general explanation.

Concerning smartcard vs smart-card  just because upstream is using
the spelling of smartcard does not mean your .spec file has to... Though
in this case smartcard seems to be in pretty common usage to me.

More generally for obtaining sponsorship can continue to follow

and submit another package or two and provide some informal reviews
of other reviews:

report back here with links to some informal package review bugs you
have done.

When you review head this with "this is an informal review while I try
to obtain package sponsorship" or something.


Comment 4 Andrew Elwell 2010-12-16 10:47:14 UTC
informal review by myself of another python package:

Comment 5 Andrew Elwell 2011-01-12 23:01:13 UTC
Some further work:
* informal review of bug #668588 (Python26-imaging)
* Review Request for libfap (amateur radio APRS parser) in bug #669010

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-14 03:12:28 UTC
I was going to take a look, but unfortunately the -2 package fails to build for me:

swigging smartcard/scard/scard.i to smartcard/scard/scard_wrap.c
swig -python -outdir smartcard/scard -DPCSCLITE -o smartcard/scard/scard_wrap.c smartcard/scard/scard.i
unable to execute swig: Permission denied
error: command 'swig' failed with exit status 1

A missing dependency on swig, perhaps?  You really should always do a koji scratch build or a local mock build to make sure you don't have any problems like this.  Here's a scratch build showing the failure:

Please clear the Whiteboard field if providing a package which builds.

Comment 7 Andrew Elwell 2011-01-14 08:22:33 UTC
Ooops yes. Mock build failed. Bumped to -3 and added missing BuildRequires.

$ mock --rebuild ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pyscard-1.6.12-3.fc14.src.rpm 
State Changed: build
INFO: Done(/home/aelwell/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pyscard-1.6.12-3.fc14.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 21 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result

looks a bit better, thanks.

updated spec and srpm at:

Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-19 22:59:25 UTC
I will work through a couple of your submissions, though it may take me a little while.

Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2011-01-20 18:24:17 UTC
This is quite a clean package.  It builds fine and rpmlint is silent.

You can remove BuildRoot, %clean and the first line of %install.  You're obviously not targeting el4 or el5 with this spec (because of the filter stuff) so you shouldn't need those bits either.

I found a few files which do not appear to have the same license.

  taken from the Python Cookbook.  The provided URL indicates the "psf" license
  which I believe we call "Python", but I'm not certain.

  taken from; I didn't see a license at first

smartcard/scard/pyscard-reader.h - I think this is BSD license, but you'll need to chase down the source of the code and verify.  In any case, as it is compiled in with LGPL code it shouldn't change the final license but you must still verify that it is licensed and that license is compatible.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
? license field matches the actual license.
? license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   pyscard = 1.6.12-3.fc15
   pyscard(x86-64) = 1.6.12-3.fc15
   python(abi) = 2.7

* no bundled libraries that I can find.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

Comment 10 Andrew Elwell 2011-01-21 20:23:03 UTC
Spec updated to remove buildroot et al.
I have posted on upstream issue tracker ( ) to ask if there has been any correspondence between upstream and the authors of those components.

Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-08 16:51:34 UTC
Was there ever any progress on this?

Comment 12 Jason Tibbitts 2012-06-08 19:42:58 UTC
Guess not.  I'll go ahead and close this out.

Comment 14 Christopher Meng 2014-08-01 12:13:51 UTC
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #13)
> It seems that licensing issues have been resolved.
> 20140728/000086.html
> Thus I re-open the new package request.

Please open a new bug and mark this as duplicate if you want to submit a review.

Comment 15 Christopher Meng 2014-08-01 12:15:30 UTC
And please do not set review flag if you try to be a submitter.

Comment 16 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 2014-08-01 12:31:02 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1125953 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.