Spec URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Im introduce flask-pyoidc into fedora, this is a denpendency Fedora Account System Username: lcrpkking
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5238011 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2161003-pyjwkest/srpm-builds/05238011/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Hello @lichaoran, thank you for the package. > Bug 2161003 - Review Request: pyjwkest - dependency of pyoidc library Can you please update the summary and put the package summary instead of "dependency of pyoidc library"? > # Check if the automatically generated License and its spelling is correct for Fedora > # https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ > License: ASL I guess that's an autogenerated comment telling you to check if the ASL is a correct license name according to Fedora guidelines. Please do so :-) Please take a look here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ and use the SPDX expression for the exact ASL version. Then you can remove the autogenerated comment. > URL: https://pypi.org/project/pyjwkest/ This is up to you, I don't see it as a blocker but I am confused where the source code lives. Because the PyPI page doesn't show any project homepage. I think it is this project? https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyjwkest The homepage URL was added in https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyjwkest/commit/dde43072349917ba1f94c8962fe19e2b77896115 but there is a total mess in versions. The last release on GitHub is 1.4.0, the version on PyPI says 1.4.2, and in src/jwkest/__init__.py there is 1.4.3 . Can you please ask/help the maintainer to sort this out? > # Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora > %global _description %{expand: > This is package 'pyjwkest' generated automatically by pyp2spec.} Can you please write two or three sentences about the package and then remove the comment? > # For official Fedora packages, including files with '*' +auto is not allowed > # Replace it with a list of relevant Python modules/globs and list extra files in %%files > %pyproject_save_files '*' +auto As the comment says, '*' is not allowed for official Fedora packages. Instead, you should change it to the package name. If you do `import foo` to use the package, then the value is 'foo'. > Issues: > ======= > - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > Note: pyjwkest.spec should be python-pyjwkest.spec > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_spec_file_naming The fedora-review tool also found this error. Your spec should be named python-pyjwkest.spec
Hi @Jakub Kadlčík > Can you please update the summary and put the package summary instead > of "dependency of pyoidc library"? Already done. > I guess that's an autogenerated comment telling you to check if the > ASL is a correct license name according to Fedora guidelines. Please > do so :-) Already done. > This is up to you, I don't see it as a blocker but I am confused where > the source code lives. Because the PyPI page doesn't show any project > homepage. > I think it is this project? > https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyjwkest > The homepage URL was added in > https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyjwkest/commit/dde43072349917ba1f94c8962fe19e2b77896115 > but there is a total mess in versions. The last release on GitHub is > 1.4.0, the version on PyPI says 1.4.2, and in src/jwkest/__init__.py > there is 1.4.3 . Can you please ask/help the maintainer to sort this out? For now i can't find the maintainer, contacted roland/roland but he did not do the maintaince job for a while. I think the pypi latest version 1.4.2 is relate to https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyjwkest/commit/f0be3f5a5630a64b1c4cd6296a663935edbcb00f, because the pypi latest release date is alse the same day, so i guess the latest codebase is not in pypi but 1.4.2 is general avaliable. > Can you please write two or three sentences about the package and > then remove the comment? Done. > As the comment says, '*' is not allowed for official Fedora > packages. Instead, you should change it to the package name. If you do > `import foo` to use the package, then the value is 'foo'. Done > The fedora-review tool also found this error. Your spec should be named > python-pyjwkest.spec Done and modified the origin request body.
Thank you for the updates @lichaoran, > Done and modified the origin request body. You can do this if you prefer. But the general practice is adding the new Spec URL: .. SRPM URL: ... lines to the new comment. > # Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora You can remove this comment as well :-) > Done and modified the origin request body. Did you update both the spec file and the SRPM? I suspect you forgot to upload the new spec file because I am seeing some of the previous errors, like this > Issues: > ======= > - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > Note: pyjwkest.spec should be python-pyjwkest.spec > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_spec_file_naming and this > python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL
> You can do this if you prefer. But the general practice is adding the > new ... > lines to the new comment. New uploads now @Jakub Kadlčík: Spec URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc37.src.rpm > You can remove this comment as well :-) Done. > Did you update both the spec file and the SRPM? I suspect you forgot > to upload the new spec file because I am seeing some of the previous > errors, like this You are right, forget to update the SRPM :-)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5350114 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2161003-pyjwkest/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05350114-python-pyjwkest/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Thank you for the changes. Sorry, one last thing. The licensecheck found also these two files with MIT license. MIT (Old Style, legal disclaimer) --------------------------------- pyjwkest-1.4.2/src/jwkest/PBKDF2.py MIT License ----------- pyjwkest-1.4.2/src/jwkest/aes_gcm.py so we have to update the LICENSE field to mention both, like this: License: Apache-2.0 AND MIT
> so we have to update the LICENSE field to mention both, like this: > > License: Apache-2.0 AND MIT Spec URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5403736 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2161003-pyjwkest/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05403736-python-pyjwkest/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
> [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. One last thing that needs to be fixed. You can see how others did the "licensing breakdown" https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bitwise/blob/rawhide/f/bitwise.spec https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/river/blob/rawhide/f/river.spec It will be a +1 after that. So there is a topic that I would like to bring forward. Since this would be your first Fedora package, you will need to get sponsored into the `packager' group before this package can be accepted. I would like to sponsor you. That would make it my responsibility to guide you through the processes that you will do, and the tools that you will need as a package maintainer. I would also be there to answer your packaging-related questions, or to help you find somebody who knows the answers. Your responsibilities as a future package maintainer are explained here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/ To make sure a person is able to fulfill the package maintainer responsibilities, we usually stick to this process https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requirements I am sending you an email with some follow-up information and my contact information. But for the sake of full transparency, there are also other packager sponsors, so you can reach out to them if you prefer to do so. They might be busy though. https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/active
> One last thing that needs to be fixed. > You can see how others did the "licensing breakdown" > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bitwise/blob/rawhide/f/bitwise.spec > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/river/blob/rawhide/f/river.spec Spec URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
> # pyjwkest: Apache-2.0 > # src/jwkest/aes_gcm.py: MIT In a previous comment, we discussed that src/jwkest/PBKDF2.py is MIT as well.
> In a previous comment, we discussed that src/jwkest/PBKDF2.py is MIT as well. Updated :) Spec URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/pkking/oidc-in-fedora/raw/main/pyjwkest/python-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
Created attachment 1944042 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5403736 to 5524910
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5524910 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2161003-pyjwkest/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05524910-python-pyjwkest/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thank you for the updates, the package looks good to me and the review is finished now. Once I sponsor @lichaoran, I will give this ticket fedora-review+. 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT (Old Style, legal disclaimer)", "MIT License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2161003-python- pyjwkest/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: 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. [ ]: 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: [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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [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-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-pyjwkest-1.4.2-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpefy34bhh')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-pyjwkest.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jwkest/PBKDF2.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-pyjwkest.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jwkest/aes_gcm.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-pyjwkest.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jwkest/ecc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_symkey.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwdecrypt.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwenc.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwk_create.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwk_export.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwkutil.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary peek.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-documentation ============================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 1.0 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1 python3-pyjwkest.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jwkest/PBKDF2.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-pyjwkest.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jwkest/aes_gcm.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-pyjwkest.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/jwkest/ecc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen_symkey.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwdecrypt.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwenc.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwk_create.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwk_export.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jwkutil.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary peek.py python3-pyjwkest.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyjwkest/pyjwkest-1.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5560fd5ba08655f29ff6ad1df1e15dc05abc9d976fcbcec8d2b5167f49b70222 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5560fd5ba08655f29ff6ad1df1e15dc05abc9d976fcbcec8d2b5167f49b70222 Requires -------- python3-pyjwkest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(future) python3.11dist(pycryptodomex) python3.11dist(requests) python3.11dist(six) Provides -------- python3-pyjwkest: python-pyjwkest python3-pyjwkest python3.11-pyjwkest python3.11dist(pyjwkest) python3dist(pyjwkest) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2161003 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyjwkest
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2178938 ***