Bug 1592341 - Review Request: nimbus-jose-jwt - Nimbus JOSE+JWT
Summary: Review Request: nimbus-jose-jwt - Nimbus JOSE+JWT
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: 28
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: oVirt_on_Fedora 1591828
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-06-18 13:02 UTC by Sandro Bonazzola
Modified: 2018-06-21 15:01 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
New package: nimbus-jose-jwt This library implements the Javascript Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and JSON Web Token (JWT) specs, providing comprehensive yet easy to use security for: * Signing and encrypting tokens, such as bearer access tokens in OAuth 2.0 and OpenID * Connect identity tokens; * Security event tokens; * Self-contained API keys, with optional revocation; * Stateless sessions; * Protecting arbitrary content and messages; * Authenticating clients and web API requests. More info are available on the project home page: https://connect2id.com/products/nimbus-jose-jwt
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-06-21 15:01:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Sandro Bonazzola 2018-06-18 13:02:01 UTC
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sbonazzo/nimbus-jose-jwt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00767564-nimbus-jose-jwt/nimbus-jose-jwt.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sbonazzo/nimbus-jose-jwt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00767564-nimbus-jose-jwt/nimbus-jose-jwt-5.12-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description: Java library for Javascript Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
Fedora Account System Username: sbonazzo

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-06-18 18:31:20 UTC
 - rm -rf %{buildroot} is not needed

 - License: ASL-2.0

It's "ASL 2.0" without the -

 - %define debug_package %{nil} is not needed, it's a noarch package

 - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line

 - Specify Version-Release in your %changelog entry



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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/bob/packaging/review/nimbus-jose-jwt/review-nimbus-jose-
     jwt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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]: 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]: 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
     is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil}
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

Java:
[ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== 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: nimbus-jose-jwt-5.12-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          nimbus-jose-jwt-javadoc-5.12-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          nimbus-jose-jwt-5.12-1.fc29.src.rpm
nimbus-jose-jwt.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Java library for Javascript Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
nimbus-jose-jwt.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
nimbus-jose-jwt.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL-2.0
nimbus-jose-jwt.noarch: W: no-documentation
nimbus-jose-jwt-javadoc.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
nimbus-jose-jwt-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL-2.0
nimbus-jose-jwt.src: E: description-line-too-long C Java library for Javascript Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) and JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
nimbus-jose-jwt.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
nimbus-jose-jwt.src: W: invalid-license ASL-2.0
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-06-19 12:35:22 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 4 Sandro Bonazzola 2018-06-20 08:39:19 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> Package approved.

Thanks!

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-06-20 12:44:27 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nimbus-jose-jwt

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2018-06-20 14:36:05 UTC
nimbus-jose-jwt-5.12-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bfb74b2c91

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2018-06-21 15:01:11 UTC
nimbus-jose-jwt-5.12-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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