Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06398637-python-krb5/python-krb5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06398637-python-krb5/python-krb5-0.5.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: This library provides Python functions that wraps the Kerberos 5 C API. Due to the complex nature of this API it is highly recommended to use something like python-gssapi which exposes the Kerberos authentication details through GSSAPI. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python3-krb5 : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site- packages/krb5/python_krb5.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-krb5/2238652-python- krb5/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [ ]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 12985 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-krb5 [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-krb5-0.5.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-krb5-debugsource-0.5.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-krb5-0.5.1-1.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/tmpld8fwwtj')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python3-krb5.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/python_krb5.h ========== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 11.2 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: 2 python3-krb5.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/python_krb5.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_ccache.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_ccache_match.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_ccache_mit.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_ccache_support_switch.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_cccol.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_context.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_context_mit.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_creds.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_creds_opt.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_creds_opt_mit.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_creds_opt_set_in_ccache.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_creds_opt_set_pac_request.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_exceptions.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_keyblock.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_kt.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_kt_have_content.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_kt_mit.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_principal.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_string.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-krb5: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/krb5/_string_mit.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/k/krb5/krb5-0.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7125ee240dad951cc0a71e567c51b215238e490e87ad67b1af9a69dd90e63bca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7125ee240dad951cc0a71e567c51b215238e490e87ad67b1af9a69dd90e63bca Requires -------- python3-krb5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit) libk5crypto.so.3(k5crypto_3_MIT)(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-krb5-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-krb5: python-krb5 python3-krb5 python3-krb5(x86-64) python3.11-krb5 python3.11dist(krb5) python3dist(krb5) python-krb5-debugsource: python-krb5-debugsource python-krb5-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238652 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Builds on all architectures: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/carlwgeorge/reviews/build/6398637 b) Building from forgesource might be cleaner as it does not contain a generated egg-info directory, however if using sources from pypi, then may want to remove src/krb5.egg-info directory in the prep section c) Reason for no tests is fine d) Should there be a -devel package with python_krb5.h ? It is currently installed in %{sitepackages}/krb5 - see for example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pycairo/blob/rawhide/f/pycairo.spec e) The build-helper files from Heimdal are under BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause licenses. This seems ok as none are included in the build, but helpful to confirm.
> b) Building from forgesource might be cleaner as it does not contain a generated egg-info directory, > however if using sources from pypi, then may want to remove src/krb5.egg-info directory in the > prep section The Python package guidelines allow using PyPI as long as things like tests and licenses are present. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi The rest of those guidelines make no mention of removing the egg-info directory. I do not believe it's necessary with the modern pyproject macros. > d) Should there be a -devel package with python_krb5.h ? It is currently installed in %{sitepackages}/krb5 > - see for example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pycairo/blob/rawhide/f/pycairo.spec No, this file is an oversight and should probably be removed. I've sent a fix upstream and included it as a patch in the spec file. https://github.com/jborean93/pykrb5/pull/32 > e) The build-helper files from Heimdal are under BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause licenses. This seems > ok as none are included in the build, but helpful to confirm. Correct, they are not included and the package builds against krb5-devel, not heimdal-devel. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06400811-python-krb5/python-krb5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06400811-python-krb5/python-krb5-0.5.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Thanks. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-krb5
FEDORA-2023-65eaa5769f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-65eaa5769f
FEDORA-2023-65eaa5769f has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 2099857 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***