Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6395418
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238438-python-k5test/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06395418-python-k5test/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:
[ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* NTP License", "ISC
     License", "*No copyright* MIT License ISC License", "NTP License". 13
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2238438-python-k5test/licensecheck.txt
[!
b]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[ ]: 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: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1666 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: 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

===== 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.
[-]: %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-k5test-0.10.3-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-k5test-0.10.3-1.fc40.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/tmp7but_8nk')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

======= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =======




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/k/k5test/k5test-0.10.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9c9deebcad63a315e81833d45e9fd12bf20166643b8abcb9ff6f4d6b184c571f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c9deebcad63a315e81833d45e9fd12bf20166643b8abcb9ff6f4d6b184c571f


Requires
--------
python3-k5test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-k5test:
    python-k5test
    python3-k5test
    python3.12-k5test
    python3.12dist(k5test)
    python3dist(k5test)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238438
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, R, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Consider also marking the file K5TEST-License.txt as a license file. Perhaps check with
legal due to export restriction notice and/or file a bug upstream.
b) The text in the licenses does not correspond to either the ISC or MIT licenses, though is similar to them.

> [!
> b]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.

This is not currently a requirement in either the in either the review guidelines [0] or the license guidelines [1].  If fedora-review still says that it is, that that's a bug with fedora-review.  Previously it was a requirement, but it was dropped over a year ago [2].  When it was a requirement, the implementation of the breakdown was "left to the maintainer" [3].  A common solution was to defer to an upstream breakdown in the license file, which k5test already has [4].  This shouldn't be a blocker, but I went ahead and added an extra comment in the spec file for good measure.

> a) Consider also marking the file K5TEST-License.txt as a license file. 

Fixed with a patch and sent upstream [5].

> Perhaps check with legal due to export restriction notice and/or file a bug upstream.

This is the same restriction that krb5 has [6], which is already allowed.

> b) The text in the licenses does not correspond to either the ISC or MIT licenses, though is similar to them.

LICENSE.txt matches the SPDX ISC license text [7], verified manually and by two separate tools (licensecheck and askalono).  K5TEST-LICENSE.txt does have some differences from the reference SPDX MIT license text [8], but LICENSE.txt is clear that that file in question, k5test/realm.py, falls under the MIT license.


Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06398555-python-k5test/python-k5test.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06398555-python-k5test/python-k5test-0.10.3-1.fc40.src.rpm


[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
[2] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/c/a14aeb9e1fac236423c0d151768973a0f7c6ed80
[3] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/blob/5c515daae464e324793b3b6b96d22bfd1bcf0858/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_165-166
[4] https://github.com/pythongssapi/k5test/blob/v0.10.3/LICENSE.txt
[5] https://github.com/pythongssapi/k5test/pull/26
[6] https://github.com/krb5/krb5/blob/krb5-1.21.2-final/NOTICE#L1155-L1184
[7] https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC.html
[8] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html

I found a Fedora legal issue discussing the license mess of krb5 [0].  I think whatever is decided for krb5 would apply to this package as well.  I've commented there asking for clarification on using LicenseRef-HPND-us-export-label in this spec file.

[0] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/124#note_1556068384

This new license has been submitted to SPDX.

https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/343

This new license has been accepted by SPDX with an identifier of HPND-export-US-modify.

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2138
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/2170

Please go ahead and approve this package.  I'll replace the string MIT with HPND-export-US-modify during import.

Thanks. Approved.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-k5test

FEDORA-2023-0aee85ac87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0aee85ac87

FEDORA-2023-0aee85ac87 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.