Bug 2386164

Some thoughts:
1) The description doesn't do a great job explaining what the package does to someone without prior knowledge. Maybe start with something along the lines of "Python library for the reading and writing of embroidery files." (From the project's readme.)
2) From the current state of the upstream repo it looks like wouldn't be packaging the latest version. I saw that there is an issue about it but I think this really needs to be cleaned upstream to avoid further confusion. (I'd consider that a blocker for now.)
3) Why are you downloading the source by git commit instead of version tags? I don't know whether there are rules about it but it seems unnecessarily complex, harder for review and error prone for future updates.

I think (2) has been resolved upstream. Any thoughts or comments on the other points?
Especially on 3: Would you be willing to change that or would it be the duty of the reviewer to decide whether the current state is acceptable or not? (If so, why is necessary for this package?) I'm seeing commit based downloads like this in packages where there are no tagged versions upstream or whenever someone wants to build on a specific commit which isn't tagged. In those cases there usually is a date based string and part of the commit in the Release field of the package. That isn't the case here and I think the default would be to not reference any commits but just go with the tagged version in this case. (We store the tarball checksum in git and the tarball itself in dist-git so I don't see any reason to pin it to a git commit for security reasons or anything like that.)

Thanks, updated. Used the tag and added the introductory sentence to the description.
Used the commit initially as choice of tags was unclear.

spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pystitch.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9511364
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386164-python-pystitch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09511364-python-pystitch/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.

For some reason I didn't get email notifications of your reply -.- Thanks for fixing and clearing things up!

The copr builds for f42 and f41 fail because of some mismatch in the python metadata, those can be circumvented by just removing those keys from the pyproject.toml with tomcli. See python-mwparserfromhell or python-versioninigit - I think this is where I saw it first - for examples. (It looks like f43+ won't need those hacks any more, reminds me that we should remove or wrap them in an appropriate if block.)

Correction: The email notifications were actually there, just slipped through the cracks, sorry.

Have used sed and an if block to remove the keys that do not work on f42 and f41


spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pystitch.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2106717 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9511364 to 9557187

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9557187
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386164-python-pystitch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09557187-python-pystitch/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.

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

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



===== 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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).
[x]: 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.
[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-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.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/tmp0ol2bqqq')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pystitch.src: E: spelling-error ('api', '%description -l en_US api -> API, APO, Apia')
python3-pystitch.noarch: E: spelling-error ('api', '%description -l en_US api -> API, APO, Apia')
python3-pystitch.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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

python3-pystitch.noarch: E: spelling-error ('api', '%description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape')
python3-pystitch.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s 


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/inkstitch/pystitch/archive/v1.0.0/pystitch-1.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d8f2d325e6513d948ff4d2b5e3c8495aa6e0f3849247143ff17e927246733968
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8f2d325e6513d948ff4d2b5e3c8495aa6e0f3849247143ff17e927246733968

Requires
--------
python3-pystitch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

Provides
--------
python3-pystitch:
    python-pystitch
    python3-pystitch
    python3.14-pystitch
    python3.14dist(pystitch)
    python3dist(pystitch)


Package is APPROVED.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pystitch

Thanks for the review.

https://release-monitoring.org/project/386238/

FEDORA-2025-5f6e59b5b6 (python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5f6e59b5b6

FEDORA-2025-a5cee731a0 (python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a5cee731a0

FEDORA-2025-a5cee731a0 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-a5cee731a0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a5cee731a0

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

FEDORA-2025-5f6e59b5b6 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-5f6e59b5b6 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5f6e59b5b6

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

FEDORA-2025-5f6e59b5b6 (python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-a5cee731a0 (python-pystitch-1.0.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.