Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622143/python-oath.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622143/python-oath-1.4.4-1.src.rpm Description: Python implementation of HOTP, TOTP and OCRA Fedora Account System Username: thebeanogamer
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10622146 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2491197-python-oath/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10622146-python-oath/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.
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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-oath/2491197- python-oath/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15, /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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 878 bytes in 1 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: [?]: 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. [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-oath-1.4.4-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-oath-1.4.4-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpj8i0zr92')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bdauvergne/python-oath/archive/refs/tags/v1.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74f39e1ad6c5af1cec66c3f56534bf26b5ef575b82fc14d6e40442f42f60dfdd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74f39e1ad6c5af1cec66c3f56534bf26b5ef575b82fc14d6e40442f42f60dfdd Requires -------- python3-oath (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-oath: python-oath python3-oath python3.15-oath python3.15dist(oath) python3dist(oath) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2491197 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider packaging the documentation: https://github.com/bdauvergne/python-oath/tree/master/doc though that may be covered by different licenses b) Pull request to update license information: https://github.com/bdauvergne/python-oath/pulls Maybe wait a few days to see if there is a response from upstream. This is the only blocking problem. Other than that it seems ok.
Thanks for taking a look. I've applied your PR as a patch as the maintainer's GitHub account looks pretty dead. Regarding the docs, as they're just the RFC (and as you said, different license), personally I think they're better left off. Anything ticket you'd like me to look at as as swap? Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622239/python-oath.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622239/python-oath-1.4.4-1.src.rpm
Created attachment 2146164 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10622146 to 10622243
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10622243 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2491197-python-oath/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10622243-python-oath/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.
Ok about the docs. Please also change %pyproject_save_files oath to %pyproject_save_files -L oath to ensure that if the license file is not included, an error is raised. Consider changing Source: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz to Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/python-oath-v%{version}.tar.gz or using the fourgesource macros.
License argument added Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622433/python-oath.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622433/python-oath-1.4.4-1.src.rpm I'm happy to swap the `Source`, but I'm not sure what the difference is. Surely they're just pulling the same tag? Thanks for having a look.
Created attachment 2146166 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10622243 to 10622434
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10622434 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2491197-python-oath/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10622434-python-oath/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.
@Benson would you be able to check this please? This ticket is now the last blocker to getting nitropy rolled out.
(In reply to Daniel Milnes from comment #7) > License argument added > > Spec URL: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3- > pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622433/python-oath.spec > SRPM URL: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3- > pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622433/python-oath-1.4.4-1.src.rpm > > I'm happy to swap the `Source`, but I'm not sure what the difference is. > Surely they're just pulling the same tag? See the packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags My expectation is that one form is a little more readable. > > Thanks for having a look.
(In reply to Daniel Milnes from comment #10) > @Benson would you be able to check this please? This ticket is now the last > blocker to getting nitropy rolled out. Upstream does seem active: https://github.com/bdauvergne/python-oath/pull/41 However, am waiting to get clarification on the correct licensing. Perhaps ping upstream.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #11) > (In reply to Daniel Milnes from comment #7) > > License argument added > > > > Spec URL: > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3- > > pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622433/python-oath.spec > > SRPM URL: > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3- > > pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10622433/python-oath-1.4.4-1.src.rpm > > > > I'm happy to swap the `Source`, but I'm not sure what the difference is. > > Surely they're just pulling the same tag? > > See the packaging guidelines: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_git_tags > My expectation is that one form is a little more readable. > > > > > Thanks for having a look. Made the change Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10657277/python-oath.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/python3-pynitrokey/srpm-builds/10657277/python-oath-1.4.4-1.src.rpm
Created attachment 2147073 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10622434 to 10660759
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10660759 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2491197-python-oath/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10660759-python-oath/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.
Upstream has merged the PR removing the MIT classifier, so I think everything is now correct on the spec file.
Thanks. Approved. Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2469063 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463833 would be appreciated if time allows.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-oath Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-c3e2b548fc (python-oath-1.4.5-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c3e2b548fc
FEDORA-2026-c3e2b548fc (python-oath-1.4.5-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.