Bug 2290665

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7538403
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290665-python-sqlalchemy-helpers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07538403-python-sqlalchemy-helpers/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.

RPMlint says:
python-sqlalchemy-helpers.src: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")

I'm not a native English speaker, could someone confirm this?

A few nits:

- The URL field could be https instead of http
- I don't think you need the rm -rf $RPM_BUILDROOT
- The changelog entry is for 1.0.0-1, the version in the spec is 1.0.1-1

I'd recommend using %autorelease and %autochangelog, but I'm guessing this is heading for EPEL repositories and maybe those macros aren't available? Either way, not deal-breakers.

I think that spelling is fine and clear. It definitely shouldn't be "integration's".

It does seem the package depends on a deprecated version of sqlalchemy (but presumably not deprecated in EPEL?). I don't know if you only plan to build this for EPEL, but I guess you'll need to do some compatibility work if this is going to be built for Fedora as well. Since that does seem to be a MUST item I can't approve the package as-is, but that's the only major issue I see.


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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/


===== 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: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/jcline/reviews/2290665-python-sqlalchemy-
     helpers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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 36465 bytes in 8 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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 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:
[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:
[x]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[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-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc41.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/tmp0i568x4l')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-sqlalchemy-helpers.src: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
=========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===========




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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
checks: 32, packages: 1

python3-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sqlalchemy_helpers/sqlalchemy_helpers-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d1b874b2e22cc7b10bcec030f7b53bf65ccea66f1d4e4dec3f33d8e748298901
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d1b874b2e22cc7b10bcec030f7b53bf65ccea66f1d4e4dec3f33d8e748298901


Requires
--------
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(alembic)
    python3.12dist(sqlalchemy)



Provides
--------
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers:
    python-sqlalchemy-helpers
    python3-sqlalchemy-helpers
    python3.12-sqlalchemy-helpers
    python3.12dist(sqlalchemy-helpers)
    python3dist(sqlalchemy-helpers)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2290665
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

> The URL field could be https instead of http

Fixed, thanks.

> I don't think you need the rm -rf $RPM_BUILDROOT

I've used the spectemplate that comes with rpmdevtools, it's apparently still there. I've removed it, it's been optional for ages.

> The changelog entry is for 1.0.0-1, the version in the spec is 1.0.1-1

Good catch!

> I'd recommend using %autorelease and %autochangelog, but I'm guessing this is heading for EPEL repositories and maybe those macros aren't available? Either way, not deal-breakers.

Yeah, it'll have to go to both Fedora and EPEL

> I think that spelling is fine and clear. It definitely shouldn't be "integration's".

Thanks.

> It does seem the package depends on a deprecated version of sqlalchemy (but presumably not deprecated in EPEL?).

It's actually compatible with SQLAlchemy 1.4 and 2.x, I test it in tox (but not in this package, it just runs pytest). It's 1.4 though, not 1.3, I'll fix it upstream for the next release.

Thanks for the review!

Any new comments, Jeremy?
Someone else?

I wonder if the auto-dependency-generator would select 2.0 for SQLAlchemy if the upstream dependency had ">=1.4,<3"... In any case, assuming it's now picking up 1.4 I don't have any other concerns.

Unfortunately, it currently fails to build for fedora-review due to the Python 3.13 transition, I believe:

Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.12 needed by python3-pydantic-2.7.3-1.fc41.noarch
  - nothing provides python3.12dist(annotated-types) >= 0.4 needed by python3-pydantic-2.7.3-1.fc41.noarch
  - nothing provides python3.12dist(pydantic-core) = 2.18.4 needed by python3-pydantic-2.7.3-1.fc41.noarch
  - nothing provides python3.12dist(typing-extensions) >= 4.6.1 needed by python3-pydantic-2.7.3-1.fc41.noarch
 Problem 2: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.12 needed by python3-pydantic-settings-2.3.1-1.fc41.noarch
  - nothing provides python3.12dist(python-dotenv) >= 0.21 needed by python3-pydantic-settings-2.3.1-1.fc41.noarch

I'll try to remember to come back to this in a couple days to recheck, but poke me again if I forget :)

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2038918 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7538403 to 7702856

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7702856
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290665-python-sqlalchemy-helpers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07702856-python-sqlalchemy-helpers/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.

Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-sqlalchemy-helpers/python-sqlalchemy-helpers.spec
SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-sqlalchemy-helpers/python-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm

Created attachment 2038928 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7702856 to 7705008

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7705008
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290665-python-sqlalchemy-helpers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07705008-python-sqlalchemy-helpers/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.

I’ll take this.

This package is APPROVED, assuming you’ll fix the mistake in the description.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
  ==> In the description, "contains a tools" should be "contains tools".


===== 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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
==> In the description, "contains a tools" should be "contains tools".
[-]: 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 36465 bytes in 8 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]: 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 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:
[x]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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/tmpy7j_mhsy')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-sqlalchemy-helpers.src: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s 

==> This is an edge-case, there are countable and uncountable meanings of the word "integration".


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-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

==> Same as above.


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sqlalchemy_helpers/sqlalchemy_helpers-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d1b874b2e22cc7b10bcec030f7b53bf65ccea66f1d4e4dec3f33d8e748298901
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d1b874b2e22cc7b10bcec030f7b53bf65ccea66f1d4e4dec3f33d8e748298901


Requires
--------
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(alembic)
    python3.13dist(sqlalchemy)



Provides
--------
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers:
    python-sqlalchemy-helpers
    python3-sqlalchemy-helpers
    python3.13-sqlalchemy-helpers
    python3.13dist(sqlalchemy-helpers)
    python3dist(sqlalchemy-helpers)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2290665
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

FEDORA-2024-d8e25557dc (python-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d8e25557dc

FEDORA-2024-d8e25557dc has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-d8e25557dc \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d8e25557dc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-d8e25557dc (python-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.