Spec URL: https://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-openid-teams/python-openid-teams.spec SRPM URL: https://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-openid-teams/python-openid-teams-1.1-36.fc44.src.rpm Description: Teams extension implementation for python-openid Fedora Account System Username: kevin This is a re-review of a retired package. It's... not the greatest. Upstream hasn't had a release in 10 years and it still uses some very old python patterns. However, it works and it's used by a few other packages like python-pyramid-fas-openid and ipsilon.
Nils said he would review this. ;) Assigning him... hopefully he doesn't mind.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9521286 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2393004-python-openid-teams/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09521286-python-openid-teams/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-openid-teams Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Fixed up the license. The 'name already exists' is known, this is a re-review to bring that package back (it's blocked/retired in f44/f43) Spec URL: https://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-openid-teams/python-openid-teams.spec SRPM URL: https://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-openid-teams/python-openid-teams-1.1-37.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2105753 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9521286 to 9524360
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9524360 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2393004-python-openid-teams/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09524360-python-openid-teams/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-openid-teams Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #1) > Nils said he would review this. ;) Assigning him... hopefully he doesn't > mind. I don’t mind, and I wouldn’t have minded you poking me to get my attention earlier! Just didn’t notice it, sorry… 😉
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= Some minor things, but let’s fix them when the package is resurrected. See inline comments. ===== 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. [-]: 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. ==> NB: the spec file contains this in %files: # TODO: Upstream error: no COPYING in latest release #%doc COPYING That commented out `%doc` should become `%license`. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages ==> Owned by Python [-]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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: [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 ==> NB: The way this Python package is built is a bit outdated, but let’s resurrect this first and fix later. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ==> NB: There’s a version 1.2 tagged in the repo, but I don’t know what got changed and if it’s usable as a drop-in. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ==> The upstream source doesn’t have tests, yay! [?]: 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-openid-teams-1.1-37.fc44.noarch.rpm python-openid-teams-1.1-37.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpsgj3cvca')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-openid-teams.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-openid python3-openid-teams.noarch: W: no-documentation python-openid-teams.spec: W: no-%check-section python-openid-teams.spec:45: W: macro-in-comment %doc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 python3-openid-teams.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python3-openid python3-openid-teams.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/puiterwijk/python-openid-teams/releases/download/v1.1/python-openid-teams-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b815a75a135a3b6074e4c719ffee03584f336c2baa6e4fd7aa195297d16dc5a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b815a75a135a3b6074e4c719ffee03584f336c2baa6e4fd7aa195297d16dc5a Requires -------- python3-openid-teams (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-openid python3.14dist(python3-openid) python3.14dist(six) Provides -------- python3-openid-teams: python-openid-teams python3-openid-teams python3.14-openid-teams python3.14dist(python-openid-teams) python3dist(python-openid-teams) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2393004 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Perl, fonts, Java, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
This package is approved.
Thanks Nils!