Bug 2526940

I'll review it.

I do not see any major issues so here is my formal

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No need for separate development -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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package doe not contain systemd file(s).
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (1.7.5).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify.
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on
     all supported architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc46.noarch.rpm
          python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc46.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/tmp_kmpfg47')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-joserfc.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 43 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 1

python3-joserfc.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 39 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/joserfc/joserfc-1.7.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d5ff536e658e17664f8c1b1ab60dc4aa62aa973fcef1edd33cc44bda45d6f5ea
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5ff536e658e17664f8c1b1ab60dc4aa62aa973fcef1edd33cc44bda45d6f5ea


Requires
--------
python3-joserfc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.15dist(cryptography)



Provides
--------
python3-joserfc:
    python-joserfc
    python3-joserfc
    python3.15-joserfc
    python3.15dist(joserfc)
    python3dist(joserfc)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2526940
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


LGTM. The package is

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-joserfc
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

FEDORA-2026-f71c495d9b (python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-f71c495d9b

FEDORA-2026-f71c495d9b (python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-dd8914c9af (python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-dd8914c9af

FEDORA-2026-a73e169245 (python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a73e169245

FEDORA-2026-dd8914c9af has been pushed to the Fedora 45 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-dd8914c9af \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-dd8914c9af

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2026-a73e169245 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-a73e169245 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a73e169245

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2026-dd8914c9af (python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-a73e169245 (python-joserfc-1.7.5-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.