Bug 2273026

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8238743
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273026-python-mir_eval/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08238743-python-mir_eval/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

A successful build can be found at
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/python-mir_eval/build/8239532/

Last release has a dependency that is not in Fedora.
Latest commit does not have that dependency, but not sure if it will work with
other packages that depend on it.  It would be helpful to also package
documentation, this can be built with sphinx.

What is the missing dependency?

Thought future was missing
https://github.com/mir-evaluation/mir_eval/blob/645f46258515677620add3a60fc21a6bf6b27363/setup.py#L29

but it is available
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/future/python3-future/

Looks like future is no longer available with 3.13, but mir_eval no longer uses it, so I patched it out.

Added docs.

SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-mir_eval/python-mir_eval-0.7-2.fc42.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-mir_eval/python-mir_eval.spec

Created attachment 2057578 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8238743 to 8255191

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8255191
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273026-python-mir_eval/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08255191-python-mir_eval/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

It fails to build with:
+ /usr/bin/python3 -Bs /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_wheel.py /builddir/build/BUILD/python-mir_eval-0.7-build/mir_eval-0.7/pyproject-wheeldir
/usr/bin/python3: No module named pip

Fixed:

SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-mir_eval/python-mir_eval-0.7-3.fc42.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-mir_eval/python-mir_eval.spec

Created attachment 2057583 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8255191 to 8255348

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8255348
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273026-python-mir_eval/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08255348-python-mir_eval/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Ugh. One sec.

Fixed, same links.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2057637 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8255348 to 8256962

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8256962
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273026-python-mir_eval/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08256962-python-mir_eval/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 455 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-
     mir_eval/2273026-python-mir_eval/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13,
     /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages
[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.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 128367 bytes in 23 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-mir_eval-0.7-3.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-mir_eval-0.7-3.fc42.src.rpm
============================================= rpmlint session starts =============================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpa8jtos33')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-mir_eval.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-mir_eval/html/.buildinfo
======= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 s ========




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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-mir_eval.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-mir_eval/html/.buildinfo
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/craffel/mir_eval/archive/0.7/mir_eval-0.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ca9e6bbc097925e54fa337d8c826a3a845b13a5b631176a6c2bb2b34a4fb8b18
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca9e6bbc097925e54fa337d8c826a3a845b13a5b631176a6c2bb2b34a4fb8b18


Requires
--------
python3-mir_eval (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(numpy)
    python3.13dist(scipy)
    python3.13dist(six)
    python3dist(matplotlib)
    python3dist(numpy)
    python3dist(scipy)
    python3dist(six)



Provides
--------
python3-mir_eval:
    python-mir_eval
    python3-mir_eval
    python3.13-mir_eval
    python3.13dist(mir-eval)
    python3dist(mir-eval)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2273026
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R, Java, Haskell, C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Build log contains:

WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.beat.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.chord.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.melody.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.multipitch.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.onset.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.pattern.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.segment.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.hierarchy.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.separation.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.tempo.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.transcription.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.transcription_velocity.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.key.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.util.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.io.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.sonify.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: Failed to import mir_eval.display.
Possible hints:
* KeyError: 'mir_eval'
* ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy'
building [mo]: targets for 0 po files that are out of date
writing output... 
building [html]: targets for 2 source files that are out of date
updating environment: [new config] 2 added, 0 changed, 0 removed
reading sources... [ 50%] changes
reading sources... [100%] index
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'beat' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'chord' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'melody' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'multipitch' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'onset' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'pattern' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'segment' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'hierarchy' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'separation' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'tempo' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'transcription' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'transcription_velocity' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'key' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'util' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'io' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'sonify' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'
WARNING: autodoc: failed to import module 'display' from module 'mir_eval'; the following exception was raised:
No module named 'numpy'


Maybe it is better to use 
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires 

b) Please add a check section at a minimum
%check
%pyproject_check_import

though ideally

%check
%pyproject_check_import
pushd tests
%pytest --mpl --mpl-baseline-path=baseline_images/test_display
popd

c) License file does not have metadata:
rpm -qL python3-mir_eval-0.7-3.fc42.noarch.rpm
please add
%license LICENSE.txt
to files listing

d) Rather than using

pushd docs
make html
popd

consider using

pushd docs
make man
popd

Alternatively, put the html documentation in a subpackage due to extra
javascript.

e) May also want to add an explanation for

sed -e '1d' -i %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/__init__.py

SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-mir_eval/python-mir_eval-0.7-4.fc42.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-mir_eval/python-mir_eval.spec

Addressed a, c, d and e. The tests and import are unable to locate matplotlib, despite it being installed.

Created attachment 2057788 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8256962 to 8262395

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8262395
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273026-python-mir_eval/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08262395-python-mir_eval/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Will check whether https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/python-mir_eval/build/8239532/
works for the other dependencies as the tests and module importation do not fail.

Looks like this worked?

Would need to build other dependencies for 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273056
and then it is possible to check if a later commit will work.
Is it possible to make progress on those first?

Absolutely.