https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921 --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This looks good overall, with a couple of nitpicks that still need to be handled. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The license-change patch is acceptable since upstream has merged the change, https://github.com/Australian-Imaging-Service/medimages4tests/commit/c0a06fac3a6ec66c5f6bd14509979996f681d275 and this is the only commit since the tag you are packaging, so it’s clear that the exact source archive you are using may be used under Apache-2.0. You might find that it’s simpler to package a post-release snapshot of that commit, rather than patching the license, but the status quo is OK. Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec - The versioneer.py included in the source distribution is version 2.21, which was CC0-1.0: https://github.com/python-versioneer/python-versioneer/tree/0.21?tab=readme-ov-file#license This should be OK under the exception: Existing uses of CC0-1.0 on code files in Fedora packages prior to 2022-08-01, and subsequent upstream versions of those files in those packages, continue to be allowed. We encourage Fedora package maintainers to ask upstreams to relicense such files. https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/91#note_1151947383 It looks like you’re using the system versioneeer, which is version 0.29 and is Unlicense, but looking at the _version.py file in the binary RPMs, it was still generated by Versioneer 0.21, so it is still CC0-1.0. You’ll therefore need to account for this in the License field, something like: # The entire source is Apache-2.0, except that versioneer.py and the # _version.py it generates are CC0-1.0, not generally allowed for code # in Fedora, but OK under the exception for existing uses in Fedora prior # to 2022-08-01. License: Apache-2.0 AND CC0-1.0 If you can figure out how to remove the bundled versioneer.py in %prep and re-generate _version.py with the system versioneer package, then you can do: # The entire source is Apache-2.0, except that versioneer.py and the # _version.py it generates are CC0-1.0, not generally allowed for code in # Fedora, but OK under the exception for existing uses in Fedora prior to # 2022-08-01. While these are included in the source RPM, we re-generate # _version.py using the system python-versioneer, which is a later version # under Unlicense so the resulting _version.py is also Unlicense. License: Apache-2.0 AND Unlicense I tried to demonstrate this, but I could not seem to get it working. Given that _version.py was unchanged from upstream, I also tried to avoid the song-and-dance with git in %prep and just export SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION, but (unusually) I could not get that to work either. I wonder what is different here from most other packages that use Versioneer… If you can help upstream upgrade their Versioneer to a recent version that is Unlicense rather than CC0-1.0, so much the better. - I don’t think this is correct: # Remove empty file (rpmlint reports as error) [ -s medimages4tests/mri/neuro/base.py ] || rm medimages4tests/mri/neuro/base.py A zero-byte file is still importable as an empty Python module: python3 -c 'import medimages4tests.mri.neuro.basex' …and by removing the source, you have broken the import. The empty module seems pointless, but it might still be used somewhere, and there is no good reason to diverge from upstream here. ===== 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. [!]: 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* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python- medimages4tests/licensecheck.txt See Issues; _version.py is CC0-1.0 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 Spurious; these directories are owned by python3-libs. [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]: 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). Some Python sources with trivial contents are incidental duplicates. They are small in size, few in number, and not worth manually hardlinking. [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 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]: 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 2532 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local 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]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Particularly, upstream has accepted the license change. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-medimages4tests-0.5.7-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-medimages4tests-0.5.7-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmphwv7xk4w')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-medimages4tests.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: license_change.patch python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/petct_spl/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_dynamics_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_listmode/__init__.py:(and 1 more) python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_replay_param/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/data.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/data.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/petct_spl/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_dynamics_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_listmode/__init__.py:(and 1 more) python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_replay_param/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/data.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/data.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/australian-imaging-service/medimages4tests/archive/v0.5.7/medimages4tests-0.5.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9eea5545e9f9da49cb3f7b5812ae6fd2e31e0475cdfabe4a42349a4e6f7d988a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9eea5545e9f9da49cb3f7b5812ae6fd2e31e0475cdfabe4a42349a4e6f7d988a Requires -------- python3-medimages4tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(attrs) python3.13dist(nibabel) python3.13dist(openneuro-py) python3.13dist(pydicom) Provides -------- python3-medimages4tests: python-medimages4tests python3-medimages4tests python3.13-medimages4tests python3.13dist(medimages4tests) python3dist(medimages4tests) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python-medimages4tests/srpm/python-medimages4tests.spec 2025-04-19 08:49:43.336365174 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python-medimages4tests/srpm-unpacked/python-medimages4tests.spec 2025-04-17 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global pypi_name medimages4tests %global forgeurl https://github.com/australian-imaging-service/medimages4tests @@ -74,3 +84,15 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Apr 18 2025 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.5.7-1 +- Update to 0.5.7 + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.3.3-3 +- Remove empty file (rpmlint error) + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.3.3-2 +- Exclude scripts/ and tests/ from wheel + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.3.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257921 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Perl, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202257921%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
