Bug 1885040 - Review Request: python-authheaders - A library wrapping email authentication header verification and generation
Summary: Review Request: python-authheaders - A library wrapping email authentication ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carl George 🤠
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1885037 1885039
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-10-04 17:03 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2020-10-19 18:13 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-10-19 18:13:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
carl: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Neal Gompa 2020-10-04 17:03:59 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-authheaders.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-authheaders-0.13.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: A library wrapping email authentication header verification and generation.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Michael S. 2020-10-13 12:39:51 UTC
License tag need to be updated (I think) since there is more than MIT code (like some code is MPL 2.0).

Comment 2 Michael S. 2020-10-13 12:42:16 UTC
I also see that the developper recommend to update the pulib suffix list. I guess we do not want to do that in koji, but should it be done by this package somehow ? (in fact, should it be consodlidated in a RPM somewhere ?)

Comment 3 Michael S. 2020-10-13 12:44:48 UTC
In fact, given we have a publicsuffix-list.noarch rpm. Isn't it something that should be integrated (eg, change the default location and/or add a link to it, and requires the rpm ?)

Comment 5 Carl George 🤠 2020-10-14 22:29:53 UTC
Package approved.  Please add the license comment before importing.


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

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


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

[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.

Since upstream has a breakdown in their COPYING file, a comment referencing
that will be sufficient.  In the comment you should also point out there is
an MPL 2.0 file, but it is not shipped (authheaders/public_suffix_list.txt).

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", "zlib/libpng license Zope Public
     License 2.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0",
     "zlib/libpng license", "Zope Public License 2.1". 15 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/carl/packaging/reviews/1885040-python-
     authheaders/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: 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 =====

[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Upstream has some files resembling tests, but it's not clear how to run
them, and they aren't running them in CI either.  Obviously if this changes
in the future, add a %check section then.

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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: 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-authheaders-0.13.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-authheaders-0.13.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-authheaders.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/authheaders/public_suffix_list.txt ../../../../share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-authheaders.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/authheaders/public_suffix_list.txt ../../../../share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/authheaders/authheaders-0.13.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 935726b784cc636cbcfed2c977f1a6887dc60056806da4eff60db932c5896692
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 935726b784cc636cbcfed2c977f1a6887dc60056806da4eff60db932c5896692

Requires
--------
python3-authheaders (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    publicsuffix-list
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(authres)
    python3.9dist(dkimpy)
    python3.9dist(dnspython)
    python3.9dist(publicsuffix2)

Provides
--------
python3-authheaders:
    python-authheaders
    python3-authheaders
    python3.9-authheaders
    python3.9dist(authheaders)
    python3dist(authheaders)

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-10-15 13:36:01 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-authheaders

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-10-16 08:38:39 UTC
FEDORA-2020-9d4ef73a14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9d4ef73a14

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-10-19 18:13:04 UTC
FEDORA-2020-9d4ef73a14 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.