Bug 791229

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796161

- First off, no warnings from rpmlint. Nice thing
kashyap@SRPMS$ rpmlint authhub-0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ../SPECS/authhub.spec 
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
kashyap@SRPMS$ ls

- I'm trying to build the pkg on my Fedora-16, but there is no 'libverto-jsonrpc' for F16 ; And my rawhide machine seems to be a little broken.

- Reviewing the spec, it looks nice.

Partial Review:
########################################################
NA== Not Applicable 

OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is MIT)

NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun
NA - Rationale provided for static linking
OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build

OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible


OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
NA - Permissions on files must be set properly
OK - Each package must have a %clean section
OK - Each package must consistently use macros
OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content 
NA - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large
documentation
NA - Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' - This
is fetched as part of other deps.
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.
OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate.
OK - koji scratch build is successful (from Comment #1)
########################################################

Yet to do:
---------
- Build the package
- Verify the sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

(In reply to comment #2)
> - First off, no warnings from rpmlint. Nice thing
> kashyap@SRPMS$ rpmlint authhub-0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ../SPECS/authhub.spec 
> 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> kashyap@SRPMS$ ls
> 
> - I'm trying to build the pkg on my Fedora-16, but there is no
> 'libverto-jsonrpc' for F16 ; And my rawhide machine seems to be a little
> broken.
> 
> - Reviewing the spec, it looks nice.
> 
> Partial Review:
> ########################################################
> NA== Not Applicable 
> 
> OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
> OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
> OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> 
> OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
> meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is MIT)
> 
> NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
> call ldconfig in %post and %postun
> NA - Rationale provided for static linking
> OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build

(From the scratch build. I myself have to do it yet locally)
> 
> OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
> OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible
> 
> 
> OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
> %files listings
> NA - Permissions on files must be set properly
> OK - Each package must have a %clean section

OK because (from F-13 and above, it's not needed)

> OK - Each package must consistently use macros
> OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content 
> NA - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large
> documentation
> NA - Header files must be in a -devel package.
> NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' - This
> is fetched as part of other deps.
> OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
> OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.
> OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
> OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
> duplicate.
> OK - koji scratch build is successful (from Comment #1)
> ########################################################
> 
> Yet to do:
> ---------
> - Build the package
> - Verify the sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL.

Builds fine:
########################################################
[build@dhcp201-157 SPECS]$ tail build-authhub.stdout2
Wrote: /home/build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/authhub-totp-0.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/authhub-httpbasicauth-0.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/authhub-yubikey-0.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /home/build/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/authhub-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VV6lRB
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/build/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd authhub-0.1.1
+ /usr/bin/rm -rf /home/build/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/authhub-0.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
+ exit 0
########################################################

Installs fine:
########################################################
[build@dhcp201-157 x86_64]$ sudo rpm -ivh python-authhub-0.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm authhub-*
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:authhub                ########################################### [ 14%]
   2:python-authhub         ########################################### [ 29%]
   3:authhub-httpbasicauth  ########################################### [ 43%]
   4:authhub-totp           ########################################### [ 57%]
   5:authhub-yubikey        ########################################### [ 71%]
   6:authhub-debuginfo      ########################################### [ 86%]
   7:authhub-client         ########################################### [100%]
[build@dhcp201-157 x86_64]$ 
########################################################

Upstream sources match the sources used to build the package
########################################################
[build@dhcp201-157 SOURCES]$ sha256sum authhub-0.1.1.tar.gz
1c6c5b6e1b0ef83c22915e7a37800fc1a35ec4f2bf7da335383a8154be89a959  authhub-0.1.1.tar.gz
kashyap@Downloads$ sha256sum authhub-0.1.1.tar.gz
1c6c5b6e1b0ef83c22915e7a37800fc1a35ec4f2bf7da335383a8154be89a959  authhub-0.1.1.tar.gz
kashyap@Downloads$ 

########################################################


Rpmlint Warnings:

Can be waived as they're false positives w.r.t the UsrMove feature.

Filed a seperate bug for that -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794777
########################################################
[build@dhcp201-157 SPECS]$ rpmlint authhub.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/authhub-* 
authhub-httpbasicauth.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
authhub-httpbasicauth.x86_64: W: no-documentation
authhub-totp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
authhub-totp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
authhub-yubikey.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
authhub-yubikey.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
[build@dhcp201-157 SPECS]$ 
########################################################

Package Approved per above comments.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: authhub
Short Description: OTP support for MIT Kerberos
Owners: npmccallum
Branches: f17 f18 master
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Removed f18, ==devel.  Kashyap, please take ownership of review BZs. 
Thanks!

(In reply to comment #7)
> Git done (by process-git-requests).
> 
> Removed f18, ==devel.  Kashyap, please take ownership of review BZs. 

Done. Sorry, missed to do that.

> Thanks!

Marking this as closed. Since the git request is processed.