2:38 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Bug ID: 1734161
Summary: Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: djw8605(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/master/rpm/scit...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/releases/download/v0.3.3/scito...
Description:
SciTokens provide a token format for distributed authorization. The tokens are
self-describing, can be verified in a distributed fashion (no need to contact
the issuer to determine if the token is valid). This is convenient for a
federated environment where several otherwise-independent storage endpoints
want to delegate trust for an issuer for managing a storage allocation.
This is the SciTokens C++ development library.
Fedora Account System Username: djw8605
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2:42 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #1 from Derek <djw8605(a)gmail.com> ---
This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I am the upstream developer of
this package.
Successful Koji Scratch Build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36654942
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
4:28 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anto.trande(a)gmail.com
Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
4:32 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> ---
%if 0%{?el6}
scl enable devtoolset-8 do_build
%else
do_build
%endif
You are compiling with devtoolset-8 on EPEL6 only, not on EPEL7+.
Is it what you want?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:07 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
david08741(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |david08741(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from david08741(a)gmail.com ---
The source contains actually 2 sources, the one is [0] and the other one
jwt-cpp.
The preferred way is to package both of them separately.
If you decide against that, you must at least mentioned that you have bundled
jwt-cpp, see [1]
I don't think that the script to generate the source is acceptable, as it does
not ensure that other people get the same version, that you used.
You should ensure that the source is a link that ensures a specific version is
returned, such as using the above link to a release or a specific git-commit.
Also, you shouldn't invoke make directly, but use %make_build instead, see [2]
[0] https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/archive/v0.3.3.tar.gz
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #4 from Derek <djw8605(a)gmail.com> ---
Thank you for your comments. I hope I have addressed all of the comments:
- devtoolset-8 is required on EPEL6 because the package needs c++11.
- We package the header-only jwt-cpp dependency. I made a note in the spec
file [0] about the inclusion of jwt-cpp. But, since it's a header-only
dependency, it will not be "provided" by the package at the end.
- I reworked how to generate the source. Now it is simply a few different
steps, git submodule update, ... It is all documented in the spec.
- Now calling %make_build
[0]
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/dec05b8a8532f13...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
pushd build
%make_build install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
popd
No, use: %make_install -C build
- Not needed:
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Use %ldconfig_scriptlets instead of:
%post
/sbin/ldconfig
%postun
/sbin/ldconfig
- Missing isa:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}
- Valid shorthand for Apache 2.0 is ARL 2.0:
License: ASL 2.0
- Why do you include:
# Generated from:
# git archive --prefix "scitokens-cpp-0.3.3/" -o
"scitokens-cpp-0.3.3.tar"
v0.3.3
# git submodule update --init
# git submodule foreach --recursive "git archive
--prefix=scitokens-cpp-0.3.3/\$path/ --output=\$sha1.tar HEAD && tar
--concatenate --file=$(pwd)/scitokens-cpp-0.3.3.tar \$sha1.tar && rm
\$sha1.tar"
# gzip "scitokens-cpp-0.3.3.tar"
if the source is downloaded from:
https://github.com/scitokens/%{name}/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Use directly
https://github.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/releases/download/v%{version}/...
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we forbid globiing the major
soname version:
%{_libdir}/libSciTokens.so.0*
- You *must* include the LICENSE file in %files with %license and you should
include the README.md file with %doc
%license LICENSE
%doc README.md
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
4:01 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #6 from Derek <djw8605(a)gmail.com> ---
Thank you all for the great feedback!
I have incorporated all of your feedback into the spec file [0]
- Using the %make_install macro
- Removed the defattr
- ldconfig_scriplets does not appear to exist on epel7. The package is will
need to support this platform.
- Added isa to requires
- Renamed ASL license
- Those are mostly instructions for up stream how to make a release for this
package with RPM in mind. I have added those instructions to the README.md as
well.
- Updated the source0 line.
- Modified the soname globbing.
- Added the LICENSE and README.md to the files.
[0]
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/master/rpm/scit...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2:35 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Aymen Qader <qader.aymen(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |qader.aymen(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Aymen Qader <qader.aymen(a)gmail.com> ---
ldconfig_scriplets does not appear to exist on epel7. The package is
will need to support this platform.
EPEL7 does support %ldconfig_scriptlets -- see
[0] for more info.
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Shared_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:39 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #8 from Derek <djw8605(a)gmail.com> ---
I can't find the %ldconfig_scriptlets macro anywhere on my CentOS7 system. On
Fedora 29, it's provided by redhat-rpm-config-119-1.fc29.noarch in the file
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ldconfig.
On Centos7, the latest version of redhat-rpm-config is
redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-87.el7.centos.noarch and does not provide the
macros.ldconfig file. In fact, yum cannot find any package that provides
macros.ldconfig file. I believe that that ldconfig scriptlet is not provided
for EPEL7.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
12:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #9 from Aymen Qader <qader.aymen(a)gmail.com> ---
Hi,
%ldconfig_scriptlets is provided on EPEL7 by the epel-rpm-macros
package. See [0] for the source repo, and [1] for the update which
added the ldconfig macros.
[0]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/blob/epel7/f/macros.ep...
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c5ae067f71
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
7:53 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #10 from Derek <djw8605(a)gmail.com> ---
Ah, I was looking in the wrong place. Indeed, I have installed the
epel-rpm-macros, and everything is working. Thanks very much for the help.
New spec file with all the changes:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/master/rpm/scit...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:34 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
%{_libdir}/libSciTokens.soou
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:35 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
%{_libdir}/libSciTokens.so should be in the devel subpackage.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:39 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/scitokens
Own this directory:
%dir %{_includedir}/scitokens
- Remove the dot at the end of Summary:
Summary: Header files for the scitokens-cpp public interfaces.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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", "*No copyright* Apache License
(v2.0)",
"Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License".
30 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/scitokens-cpp/review-scitokens-
cpp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/scitokens
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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 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 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 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
===== 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
scitokens-cpp , scitokens-cpp-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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 debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: scitokens-cpp-0.3.3-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm
scitokens-cpp-devel-0.3.3-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm
scitokens-cpp-debuginfo-0.3.3-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm
scitokens-cpp-debugsource-0.3.3-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm
scitokens-cpp-0.3.3-3.fc31.src.rpm
scitokens-cpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libSciTokens.so
scitokens-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files for the
scitokens-cpp public interfaces.
scitokens-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
12:35 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #14 from Derek <djw8605(a)gmail.com> ---
Thank you for the review. I have updated the spec file [0] with all of the
comments.
[0]
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/scitokens/scitokens-cpp/master/rpm/scit...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3:16 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Package approved.
You still need to find a sponsor. Please read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:16 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #16 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Sponsored.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Refreshed flag.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
1:32 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
--- Comment #18 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com> ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scitokens-cpp
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
4:11 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161
Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed| |2021-07-17 09:11:50
--- Comment #19 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> ---
Package is in repos
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
1064
days inactive
1783
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
20 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com