Bug 1194028

This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8984856

Issues:
- Description could be a bit longer. Maybe:
A Python implementation of JSON Web Token draft 01. This library provides 
a means of representing signed content using JSON data structures, including claims
to be transferred between two parties encoded as digitally signed and encrypted JSON
objects.

This should be enough keywords to appear in search results.

- Update to 0.4.3

- What about the tests?

- Does is make sense to provide binaries for python3 and python2? They should
  do the same thing, so the python3 version should be enough.

- I think the packages can be noarch.

- Consider adding:

# Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs
%global _docdir_fmt %{name}


===== MUST items =====

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". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/tmp/1194028-python-jwt/licensecheck.txt
License is MIT.

[x]: 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.
     Note: Test run failed
[0]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
Builds in koji ;)

[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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.

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

===== 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 python3-jwt
Not necessary.

[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-jwt-0.4.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          python3-jwt-0.4.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          python-jwt-0.4.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
python-jwt.x86_64: E: no-binary
python-jwt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwt
python3-jwt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-jwt
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
python-jwt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python2
    python(abi)
    python-cryptography

python3-jwt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-cryptography



Provides
--------
python-jwt:
    python-jwt
    python-jwt(x86-64)

python3-jwt:
    python3-jwt
    python3-jwt(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/P/PyJWT/PyJWT-0.4.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a0019f8119cd9a31d9c29e7b47256b24642829c10941ee20f513487f466201d9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0019f8119cd9a31d9c29e7b47256b24642829c10941ee20f513487f466201d9


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1194028
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

As for the tests... I just got them included in the tarball today.  https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/pull/95  :)

New release here, addressing your concerns, except:

- The tests should show up in the next release.
- I like shipping python2 and python3 versions of the executables for the purists out there that want to run python3-only everything.  :)  Other packages do this (in some cases its necessary like with nosetests-3.4 and coverage, other cases not, like python3-ansi2html).

Koji scratch build:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9006048

Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/python-jwt.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/python-jwt-0.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm

(In reply to Ralph Bean from comment #4)
> New release here, addressing your concerns, except:
> 
> - The tests should show up in the next release.
Great.

> - I like shipping python2 and python3 versions of the executables for the
> purists out there that want to run python3-only everything.  :)  Other
> packages do this (in some cases its necessary like with nosetests-3.4 and
> coverage, other cases not, like python3-ansi2html).
I think this conflicts a bit with the intended switch to python 3. Right now there's a separate executable for Python3, but the default is Python2. After the switch, the default will be converted to Python3, but you still have python3-jwt... It seems nicer to make /bin/jwt Python3 from the start.

Either way, this was just a suggestion.

> Koji scratch build: 
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9006048
> 
> Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/python-jwt.spec
> SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/python-jwt-0.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm

- A dot is missing at the end of %description.

Rpmlint:
python-jwt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwt
python3-jwt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-jwt

Only a missing dot. Package is APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: python-jwt
Short Description: JSON Web Token implementation in Python
Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PyJWT
Owners: ralph
Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

python-jwt-0.4.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-jwt-0.4.3-1.fc21

python-jwt-0.4.3-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.