https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144611

Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST

--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- There are two extremely minor issues. Please fix them when you import. This package is APPROVED.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues ====== - The word "oath" appears in the Summary and Description, and also in README.md. Shouldn't that have a 'u' in it, "oauth"?

- New packages should use SPDX license identifiers. Change the License tag to GPL-3.0-or-later.

===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 5 files have unknown license.

But see the note above about using SPDX license identifiers.

[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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 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]: %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). [?]: 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 ------- rpmlint: 2.2.0 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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 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: 1

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

Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/gbcox/ykocli/get/d47f08d3b327a457678883ca20b4c097d5a99... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 08390284f0413447d46170ffc9280adc26799aa2696d1bed846667f4c8ea7ddd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 08390284f0413447d46170ffc9280adc26799aa2696d1bed846667f4c8ea7ddd

Requires -------- ykocli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(ykocli) copyq coreutils figlet yubikey-manager

Provides -------- ykocli: config(ykocli) ykocli

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ykocli -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Python, R, Ruby, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144611

--- Comment #4 from Gerald Cox gbcox@bzb.us --- Actually on the oauth vs oath, yubico uses: oath https://www.yubico.com/resources/glossary/oath-totp

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144611

--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #4)

Actually on the oauth vs oath, yubico uses: oath https://www.yubico.com/resources/glossary/oath-totp

Ah, okay. I didn't understand the referent of the word then.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144611

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-baa7b0cefd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-baa7b0cefd

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144611

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a115b858a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a115b858a3

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144611

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2e71af984a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2e71af984a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2e71af984a

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=2144611

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a115b858a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.