https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2379742 --- Comment #4 from wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #2) > > I would like to review it, but currently it fails to build on f43 due to > > #2379740. > > Thank you! > > Normally, packages are reviewed against a mock build for Rawhide, which is > the default if you just run > > > fedora-review -b 2379742 > > If you need to review against F43 for some reason, you can pass > --enablerepo=updates-testing to mock to get python-rignore, e.g.: > > > fedora-review -b 2379742 --mock-config=fedora-43-x86_64 > --mock-options=--enablerepo=updates-testing > > but again, normally packages should be be reviewed against Rawhide. I do > intend to ship this package for F43 once it passes review. If that happens > soon enough, I’ll add it to the update > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b. Yes, I can do it against Rawhide. Somehow it didn't come to my mind at first. > > Anyway, that's what I found so far: > > 1) 0.1.4 is no longer the latest version. > > Looks like the changes in 0.1.5 are small, > https://github.com/fastapilabs/fastapi-cloud-cli/compare/0.1.4...0.1.5. I’ll > update the submission. > > > 2) Isn't the following line "%py_provides python3-fastapi-cloud-cli" added > > by the build system already, or is the build system adding "%py_provides > > python3-fastapi_cloud_cli" and the manually added line is indeed justified? > > Here is the difference it makes. With "%py_provides > python3-fastapi-cloud-cli": > > $ rpm -q --provides -p > results_fastapi-cloud-cli/0.1.4/1.fc44/fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.4-1.fc44.noarch. > rpm > fastapi-cloud-cli = 0.1.4-1.fc44 > python-fastapi-cloud-cli = 0.1.4-1.fc44 > python3-fastapi-cloud-cli = 0.1.4-1.fc44 > python3.14-fastapi-cloud-cli = 0.1.4-1.fc44 > python3.14dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) = 0.1.4 > python3dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) = 0.1.4 > > Without it: > > $ rpm -q --provides -p > results_fastapi-cloud-cli/0.1.4/1.fc44/fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.4-1.fc44.noarch. > rpm > fastapi-cloud-cli = 0.1.4-1.fc44 > python3.14dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) = 0.1.4 > python3dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) = 0.1.4 > > We can see that the python3*dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) Provides are there > either way, since they are generated based on the .dist-info metadata. What > %py_provides adds is the python3*-fastapi-cloud-cli “aliases.” These would > already be done automatically if the package were named > python3-fastapi-cloud-cli > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_provides_for_importable_modules), but it’s named fastapi-cloud-cli because > it functions primarily as an application > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_application_naming), not as a library > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_library_naming). > > Now, one might ask, is there any reason to bother with this, since the > importable module appears to exist just to support the CLI tool? I wouldn’t > say it’s necessary or mandatory to add %py_provides in a case like this > (it’s only a SHOULD in the guidelines anyway). Still, I think there’s a good > chance that some users may try "dnf install python3-fastapi-cloud-cli” by > analogy to python3-fastapi. Adding %py_provides means that will still work, > and doesn’t really have any obvious downsides. Yes, I saw that (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_provides_for_importable_modules) earlier, but thanks to your explanation I understand it now. Thank you. > ---- > > Revisiting this submission, I’m finding that the tests have started > producing some failures and errors. I believe everything was working fine > when I submitted this, so either something changed in the dependencies or I > missed some checks before uploading the original submission. I have almost > identical testing issues in a git checkout, so I asked upstream about it in > https://github.com/fastapilabs/fastapi-cloud-cli/discussions/76 and skipped > the problematic tests for now. I also updated to 0.1.5. > > New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250906/fastapi-cloud-cli.spec > New SRPM URL: > https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250906/fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.5-1.fc42.src. > rpm > > Thanks for looking at this! No problem. I cannot approve it though due to an issue with gpg. Details below. Could you clarify? This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= A false positive. The package uses "BuildSystem:" which probably includes python3-devel. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/fastapi-cloud- cli/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: fastapi-cloud-cli (description) [-]: 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 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]: 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]: 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 2017 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. You missed to verify the signature? Upstream uses gpg. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Not all tests pass, but they have been excluded and reported upstream. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.5-1.fc44.noarch.rpm fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpci9v6h69')] checks: 32, packages: 2 Those the ones are false positives seen in other packages as well: fastapi-cloud-cli.src: W: strange-permission 0001-Downstream-only-patch-out-coverage-from-script-test.patch 666 fastapi-cloud-cli.src: W: strange-permission fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.5.tar.gz 666 fastapi-cloud-cli.src: W: strange-permission fastapi-cloud-cli.spec 666 This one is a false positive as well. I see that the patch is applied, so I assume rpmlint misses to see it due to being incompatible with "BuildSystem:" fastapi-cloud-cli.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-Downstream-only-patch-out-coverage-from-script-test.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "fastapi-cloud-cli". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fastapilabs/fastapi-cloud-cli/archive/0.1.5/fastapi-cloud-cli-0.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eaa00a3981fc8c3f3e28657739a3ea827c36af8cf1f09cf8c5f39916d89d9349 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eaa00a3981fc8c3f3e28657739a3ea827c36af8cf1f09cf8c5f39916d89d9349 Requires -------- fastapi-cloud-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(httpx) python3.14dist(pydantic) python3.14dist(pydantic[email]) python3.14dist(rich-toolkit) python3.14dist(rignore) python3.14dist(sentry-sdk) python3.14dist(typer) python3.14dist(uvicorn) python3.14dist(uvicorn[standard]) Provides -------- fastapi-cloud-cli: fastapi-cloud-cli python-fastapi-cloud-cli python3-fastapi-cloud-cli python3.14-fastapi-cloud-cli python3.14dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) python3dist(fastapi-cloud-cli) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name fastapi-cloud-cli --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Could you look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2392155 ? -- 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=2379742 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202379742%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
