https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2349303 --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alexander Lent from comment #7) > > [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13, > > /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages > > My understanding is that other packages should own these files. These two directories in particular are a frequent fedora-review glitch. They are owned by python3-libs, which this package will require, so all is well here. > > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > It already does, though due to how the PyPI sources are generated, the > LICENSE file is in the crate subfolder. See also https://github.com/pydantic/jiter/issues/187, where the project is similarly organized and a similar quirk occurs in the PyPI distributions; we’re having a hard time figuring out exactly how to fix it upstream. > > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > > python3-safetensors , python3-safetensors+numpy , > > python3-safetensors+torch > > This seems to be a result of using the pyproject extras macros. > Strangely the guidelines seem to require it but the extras macro (generated > by pyp2spec) doesn't do it: > "A package that provides a Python extra MUST require the extra’s main > package with exact NEVR." > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_handling_extras The macro *does* require the exact NEVR, e.g. $ rpm -E '%pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-foo bar' %package -n python3-foo+bar Summary: Metapackage for python3-foo: bar extras Requires: python3-foo = %{version}-%{release} %description -n python3-foo+bar This is a metapackage bringing in bar extras requires for python3-foo. It makes sure the dependencies are installed. %files -n python3-foo+bar -f /home/ben/rpmbuild/BUILD/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.x86_64-pyproject-ghost-distinfo but it does *not* do so in an arch-specific way as would normally be required. This is a known and accepted limitation of macro helpers for Python extras, remarked on in the original Change (search for "Technically," in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonExtras). In short, the dependency produced by %pyproject_extras_subpkg, which is exact-NEVR but not arch-specific, should be “good enough,” and if there is a problem with it not being arch-specific, then that problem would affect hundreds of packages throughout the distribution. > > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > > > > 0.5.3 > > > > Packaging the latest version is blocked on bug 2348381. PR opened: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-safetensors/pull-request/2 The primary maintainer hasn’t been active for several months, so I’ll go ahead and merge and build the PR as a rust-sig member once the CI finishes. > > python3-safetensors+numpy.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', > > 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') > > python3-safetensors+torch.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', > > 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') > > python3-safetensors+numpy.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > python3-safetensors+torch.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 41 filtered, 2 > > badness; has taken 0.5 s > > I think it's normal for extras packages to lack Documentation. > The spelling error is being generated by the Python RPM Macros. > Do you think it's worth filing a bug against those for the rpmlint fail in > "Metapackage" vs "Meta-package"? These should be fixed by https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/pull-request/38 (shipped with rpmlint 2.6.1 in Fedora 41) and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/pull-request/42 (not yet merged). > > > Unversioned so-files > > -------------------- > > python3-safetensors: > > /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/safetensors/_safetensors_rust.abi3.so > > I believe that this is normal for compiled code in Python site-packages. Agreed, this is a correctly-installed Python extension module that meets the conditions for an unversioned shared object, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Unversioned_shared_objects/#_when_are_unversioned_dynamic_shared_objects_acceptable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2349303 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202349303%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
