Bug 2348759

Summary: Review Request: python-pyregion - ds9 region parser for Python
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: benson_muite, mhroncok, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationTriaged
Target Release: ---Flags: benson_muite: fedora-review+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://github.com/astropy/pyregion
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-04-11 10:54:56 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1159999, 2062847, 2341612    
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8706796 to 8753254
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753254 to 8804880 none

Description Sergio Pascual 2025-02-27 15:46:50 UTC 
Spec URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion.spec
SRPM URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Description: pyregion is a python astronomy package to parse ds9 region files.
It also supports ciao region files
Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr
Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-02-27 15:57:21 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8706796
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348759-python-pyregion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08706796-python-pyregion/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- python3-pyregion : /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/geom.h 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

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.
Comment 2 Benson Muite 2025-03-09 14:07:28 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: python3-pyregion : /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-
  packages/pyregion/geom.h
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-
     python-pyregion/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13,
     /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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 1087 bytes in 1 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.
[ ]: 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.
     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:
[!]: 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).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmpbz7tyaj4')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pyregion.src: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/geom.h
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/geom.h
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/compiler_version.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyregion/pyregion-2.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925


Requires
--------
python3-pyregion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(astropy)
    python3.13dist(numpy)
    python3.13dist(pyparsing)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python3-pyregion:
    python-pyregion
    python3-pyregion
    python3-pyregion(x86-64)
    python3.13-pyregion
    python3.13dist(pyregion)
    python3dist(pyregion)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm/python-pyregion.spec	2025-03-09 14:21:15.044266340 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm-unpacked/python-pyregion.spec	2025-02-27 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -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 srcname pyregion
 %global upname pyregion
@@ -52,3 +62,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Thu Feb 27 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.3.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348759
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Does not build on i686
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130040445
Comment 3 Sergio Pascual 2025-03-12 10:27:56 UTC 
Thank you! I'm skipping the i686 build and I'm also removing geom.h. AFAIK is not used anywhere in the code, it's not even valid C

Updated

Spec URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion.spec
SRPM URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-12 10:33:59 UTC 
Created attachment 2079799 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8706796 to 8753254
Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-12 10:34:02 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753254
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348759-python-pyregion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08753254-python-pyregion/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.
Comment 6 Miro Hrončok 2025-03-21 20:54:15 UTC 
BuildRequires: tox

this is redundant.



# Add python 3.13
sed -i -e "s/310,311,312/310,311,312,313/" tox.ini

Is this needed? If so, could you please add %{python3_version_nodots} so it does not break with Python 3.14?
Comment 7 Benson Muite 2025-03-22 16:10:08 UTC 

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

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



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-
     python-pyregion/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13,
     /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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).
[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 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 1087 bytes in 1 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]: 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.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmp_q__qn31')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pyregion.src: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/compiler_version.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyregion/pyregion-2.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925


Requires
--------
python3-pyregion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(astropy)
    python3.13dist(numpy)
    python3.13dist(pyparsing)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python3-pyregion:
    python-pyregion
    python3-pyregion
    python3-pyregion(x86-64)
    python3.13-pyregion
    python3.13dist(pyregion)
    python3dist(pyregion)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm/python-pyregion.spec	2025-03-22 08:12:00.534664209 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm-unpacked/python-pyregion.spec	2025-03-12 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -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 srcname pyregion
 %global upname pyregion
@@ -58,3 +68,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Mar 12 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.3.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348759
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, R, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:

1) A build with the changes suggested by Miro works:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130604714

Please make them before import.

2) Warnings generated during build:

 /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:218: _Warning: Package 'pyregion.tests' is absent from the `packa
ges` configuration.
  !!
          ********************************************************************************
          ############################
          # Package would be ignored #
          ############################
          Python recognizes 'pyregion.tests' as an importable package[^1],
          but it is absent from setuptools' `packages` configuration.
          This leads to an ambiguous overall configuration. If you want to distribute this
          package, please make sure that 'pyregion.tests' is explicitly added
          to the `packages` configuration field.
          Alternatively, you can also rely on setuptools' discovery methods
          (for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:`
          instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`).
          You can read more about "package discovery" on setuptools documentation page:
          - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/package_discovery.html
          If you don't want 'pyregion.tests' to be distributed and are
          already explicitly excluding 'pyregion.tests' via
          `find_namespace_packages(...)/find_namespace` or `find_packages(...)/find`,
          you can try to use `exclude_package_data`, or `include-package-data=False` in
          combination with a more fine grained `package-data` configuration.
          You can read more about "package data files" on setuptools documentation page:
          - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/datafiles.html
          [^1]: For Python, any directory (with suitable naming) can be imported,
                even if it does not contain any `.py` files.
                On the other hand, currently there is no concept of package data
                directory, all directories are treated like packages.
          ********************************************************************************
  !!
    check.warn(importable)
  /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:218: _Warning: Package 'pyregion.tests.data' is absent from the `
packages` configuration.
  !!
          ********************************************************************************
          ############################
          # Package would be ignored #
          ############################
          Python recognizes 'pyregion.tests.data' as an importable package[^1],
          but it is absent from setuptools' `packages` configuration.
          This leads to an ambiguous overall configuration. If you want to distribute this
          package, please make sure that 'pyregion.tests.data' is explicitly added
          to the `packages` configuration field.
          Alternatively, you can also rely on setuptools' discovery methods
          (for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:`
          instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`).
          You can read more about "package discovery" on setuptools documentation page:
          - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/package_discovery.html
          If you don't want 'pyregion.tests.data' to be distributed and are
          already explicitly excluding 'pyregion.tests.data' via
          `find_namespace_packages(...)/find_namespace` or `find_packages(...)/find`,
          you can try to use `exclude_package_data`, or `include-package-data=False` in
          combination with a more fine grained `package-data` configuration.
          You can read more about "package data files" on setuptools documentation page:
          - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/datafiles.html
          [^1]: For Python, any directory (with suitable naming) can be imported,
                even if it does not contain any `.py` files.
                On the other hand, currently there is no concept of package data
                directory, all directories are treated like packages.
          ********************************************************************************
  !!
    check.warn(importable)

Is it helpful to package the tests and test data?
Comment 8 Sergio Pascual 2025-03-22 20:26:13 UTC 
Updated:

Spec URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion.spec
SRPM URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

I have included Miro's suggestion. Regarding the tests, it seems that upstream wants them in the package, pyproject.toml contains an explicit "include-package-data = true". I have patched pyproject.toml, listing all the packages instead of relying in autodetection (that seems to exclude "test" directories among other things)
Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-22 20:31:56 UTC 
Created attachment 2081397 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753254 to 8804880
Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-22 20:31:58 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8804880
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348759-python-pyregion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08804880-python-pyregion/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.
Comment 11 Benson Muite 2025-04-08 14:02:07 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-
     python-pyregion/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib64/python3.13
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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).
[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 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 1087 bytes in 1 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]: 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.
[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.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmptbsd0wjh')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pyregion.src: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c
python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/compiler_version.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyregion/pyregion-2.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925


Requires
--------
python3-pyregion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(astropy)
    python3.13dist(numpy)
    python3.13dist(pyparsing)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python3-pyregion:
    python-pyregion
    python3-pyregion
    python3-pyregion(x86-64)
    python3.13-pyregion
    python3.13dist(pyregion)
    python3dist(pyregion)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm/python-pyregion.spec	2025-04-07 18:09:11.321253005 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm-unpacked/python-pyregion.spec	2025-03-22 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -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 srcname pyregion
 %global upname pyregion
@@ -59,3 +69,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Sat Mar 22 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.3.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348759
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Can the documentation be built?
b) Consider using 
rpmbuild -bs
to generate the srpm so that %autochangelog is correctly handled.
c) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131281035
d) Approved. Consider implementing (a) and (b) before import.
Comment 12 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-04-11 10:39:09 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyregion
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2025-04-11 10:52:19 UTC 
FEDORA-2025-ef3c45e5df (python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ef3c45e5df
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2025-04-11 10:54:56 UTC 
FEDORA-2025-ef3c45e5df (python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.