[Bug 2208250] New: Review Request: sasl-xoauth2 - a SASL plugin that enables client-side use of OAuth 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Bug ID: 2208250 Summary: Review Request: sasl-xoauth2 - a SASL plugin that enables client-side use of OAuth 2.0 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jjelen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/sasl-xoauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/sasl-xoauth2-0.19-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: sasl-xoauth2 is a SASL plugin that enables client-side use of OAuth 2.0. Among other things it enables the use of Gmail or Outlook/Office 365 SMTP relays from Postfix. Fedora Account System Username: jjelen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2134519
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134519 [Bug 2134519] [RFE] Add cyrus-sasl-xoauth2 as a package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/tarickb/ | |%{name}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5931522 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/sasl-xoauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/sasl-xoauth2-0.21-1.fc39.src.rpm
(updated to 0.21 and removed the selinux integration as we will handle it in the main selinux policy)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Sahana Prasad shebburn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |shebburn@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|https://github.com/tarickb/ |https://github.com/tarickb/ |%{name} |sasl-xoauth2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- The copr with the package built everywhere (except for RHEL7 where it failed) is available here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/sasl-xoauth2/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #4 from Sahana Prasad shebburn@redhat.com --- 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: 3
sasl-xoauth2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency cyrus-sasl-lib ┆3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s•
looks like this is expected?
Other than this, no other issues are flagged by the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com ---
sasl-xoauth2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency cyrus-sasl-lib
I think we need this one because without that, there is no dependency on the cyrus-sasl in the RPM, while it really does not make any sense installing this package without it.
I updated also the package to the latest version and added tests:
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/sasl-xoauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/sasl-xoauth2-0.24-1.fc39.src.rpm
Its built in copr, but the new dependencies are not in EPEL7 and EPEL8 so it fails there:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/sasl-xoauth2/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2229737
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229737 [Bug 2229737] Please provide python3-msal for EPEL8 (and maybe EPEL7 if it is going to fly)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1982136 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1982136&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5931522 to 6250340
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6250340 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #8 from Sahana Prasad shebburn@redhat.com --- Thanks! This version looks good. Pasting the results of fedora-review:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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", "Apache License 2.0". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sprasad/workspace/2208250-sasl-xoauth2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/sasl2(cyrus-sasl- lib) [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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [-]: 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 30720 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: sasl-xoauth2-0.24-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm sasl-xoauth2-debuginfo-0.24-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm sasl-xoauth2-debugsource-0.24-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm sasl-xoauth2-0.24-1.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/tmpfxgdr040')] checks: 31, packages: 4
sasl-xoauth2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency cyrus-sasl-lib ============================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s ===========================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sasl-xoauth2-debuginfo-0.24-1.fc38.x86_64.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/tmph8jxua4h')] checks: 31, packages: 1
============================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 3
sasl-xoauth2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency cyrus-sasl-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- sasl-xoauth2: /usr/lib64/sasl2/libsasl-xoauth2.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tarickb/sasl-xoauth2/archive/refs/tags/release-0.24.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8a8f5679439710f2d0ae9d1b6a84b4709b0551698e2f0aef8848e0d5b025f618 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8a8f5679439710f2d0ae9d1b6a84b4709b0551698e2f0aef8848e0d5b025f618
Requires -------- sasl-xoauth2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(sasl-xoauth2) cyrus-sasl-lib libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjsoncpp.so.25()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
sasl-xoauth2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
sasl-xoauth2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- sasl-xoauth2: config(sasl-xoauth2) libsasl-xoauth2.so()(64bit) sasl-xoauth2 sasl-xoauth2(x86-64)
sasl-xoauth2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsasl-xoauth2.so-0.24-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) sasl-xoauth2-debuginfo sasl-xoauth2-debuginfo(x86-64)
sasl-xoauth2-debugsource: sasl-xoauth2-debugsource sasl-xoauth2-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-38-x86_64 -b 2208250 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Sahana Prasad shebburn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sasl-xoauth2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-44ccf88064 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-44ccf88064
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-44ccf88064 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-44ccf88064
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-08-17 01:35:52
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-44ccf88064 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250 Bug 2208250 depends on bug 2229737, which changed state.
Bug 2229737 Summary: Please provide python3-msal for EPEL8 (and maybe EPEL7 if it is going to fly) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229737
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8450c927fc has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8450c927fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8450c927fc has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8450c927fc
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208250
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8450c927fc has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com