Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Bug ID: 907583 Summary: Review Request: python-sanction - A simple, lightweight OAuth2 client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: rbean@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-sanction.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: python-sanction is a lightweight, dead simple client implementation of the OAuth2 protocol.
- Variations on OAuth2 client implementation range from a few hundred LOC to thousands. In a Pythonic world, there's absolutely no need for this when simply dealing with the client side of the spec. Currently, sanction sits at a whopping 65 LOC, one class. This makes the library tremendously easy to grok.
- Most providers have varying levels of diversion from the official spec. The goal with this library is to either handle these diversions natively, or expose a method to allow client code to deal with it efficiently and effectively.
- Three of the four OAuth2 flows should be supported by this library. Currently, only authorization code and client credential flows have been tested due to lack of other (known) implementations.
sanction has been tested with the following OAuth2 providers:
* Facebook (include the test API) * Google * Foursquare * bitly * GitHub * StackExchange * Instagram * DeviantArt
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4928281
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mrunge@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mrunge@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- I'll do a review. If somebody else is faster than me, please go ahead!
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: [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. [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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/907583-python- sanction/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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).
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 [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm python-sanction.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US natively -> naively, negatively, tentatively python-sanction.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitly -> bitty, billy, fitly 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-sanction python-sanction.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US natively -> naively, negatively, tentatively python-sanction.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitly -> bitty, billy, fitly 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- python-sanction (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python-sanction: python-sanction
MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sanction/sanction-0.1.4.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 495b934203f58b91f1134fcf8d1cc23f010fd6f576247c22ca80a49c813a792b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 495b934203f58b91f1134fcf8d1cc23f010fd6f576247c22ca80a49c813a792b
Package approved
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Thanks!
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-sanction Short Description: A simple, lightweight OAuth2 client Owners: ralph Branches: f18 f17 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc17
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sanction-0.1.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sanction-0.1.4-1.el6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |915390
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-02-25 11:25:22
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sanction-0.1.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907583
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sanction-0.1.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org