Bug 2391549

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9500581
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391549-python-sphinx-thebe/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09500581-python-sphinx-thebe/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.

Only 2 comments:
- The `-t` is `generate_buildrequires` is unnecessary. The tox environment doesn't seem to have anything useful for us and it would be better to interact with `%pytest` directly if we will need to skip some tests (it did happen at one sphinx update that I was present for)
- Instead of having to use `SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION`, please use the pypi_source. Although it is odd because I do see there is a `.git_archival.txt` file present (in the old broken format, I'll make a PR to fix that), so the `SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION` should not be needed in either way. Have you had a build failure around it, would be useful to investigate

Thank you, Cristian!  I have made the suggested changes to the spec file and uploaded a new spec and srpm to the same URLs as above.

(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #2)
> Have you had a build failure around it, would be useful to
> investigate

I have been building my own local RPMs of python-sphinx-thebe for quite awhile.  I think I needed SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION for a previous version of sphinx-thebe and didn't notice when it was no longer necessary.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2105625 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9500581 to 9516521

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9516521
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391549-python-sphinx-thebe/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09516521-python-sphinx-thebe/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.

Cristian, would you mind taking another look?

Assigning this review to myself at Jerry. The fedora review flag "?" had not been set previously, so I assume Christian was simply commenting rather than performing the review.

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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". 28 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/abauer/2391549-python-sphinx-thebe/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14,
     /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 3003 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

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

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-sphinx-thebe-0.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          python-sphinx-thebe-0.3.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpkvm5bblb')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 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

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinx_thebe/sphinx_thebe-0.3.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 576047f45560e82f64aa5f15200b1eb094dcfe1c5b8f531a8a65bd208e25a493
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 576047f45560e82f64aa5f15200b1eb094dcfe1c5b8f531a8a65bd208e25a493


Requires
--------
python3-sphinx-thebe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(sphinx)



Provides
--------
python3-sphinx-thebe:
    python-sphinx-thebe
    python3-sphinx-thebe
    python3.14-sphinx-thebe
    python3.14dist(sphinx-thebe)
    python3dist(sphinx-thebe)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2391549
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, PHP, R, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

This package looks fine to me as it is. Packaging documentation does seem to prefer Tox over pytest, but it does not make it mandatory. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This is the first package review I've done that uses the BuildSystem tag.
https://rpm.org/docs/6.0.x/manual/buildsystem.html

This seems to be doing all the traditional %prep, %build, %install steps magically behind the scenes. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but looking at build.log, rpm is indeed doing all the right things to build the package in a Fedora python approved manner.

There is no %license tag in the specfile, but the build is picking up the LICENSE file on its own ...and perhaps more importantly rpmlint is not complaining about a missing license, which it certainly would have done.


Package approved.

Sorry Jerry, this one fell off my radar, please needinfo me if I have similar ones like this. Yes all looks good, thanks Andrew for picking it up.

> Packaging documentation does seem to prefer Tox over pytest

In general tox does not make sense for downstream testing because we do not test across different python versions or such. Sometimes there are configurations specific in the tox file, and generally we should encourage to move those to the pyproject.toml

> There is no %license tag in the specfile, but the build is picking up the LICENSE file on its own

`%pyproject_install -l` (or the `BuildOption(install)` in this case) takes care of that. It will error out if the license flag from PEP639 is not present. It is very much build backend dependent though, so just trial-and-error if it works or not.

> This seems to be doing all the traditional %prep, %build, %install steps magically behind the scenes.

Generally I would encourage it unless it is needed for epel9 and before. It allows the python sig to do more general changes behind the scene.

I was not able to find a description of BuildSystem in the Fedora packaging docs. Buildsystem is a rather broad term with more than one meaning, so perhaps I missed it in the search results. Until I can see it defined in the Fedora packaging documentation, I won't use it for any of my own packages.

> I was not able to find a description of BuildSystem in the Fedora packaging docs.

Good point, I thought these were already in the Python packaging guidelines, but it seems those were not added there. There were some announcements and talks about it in the Python context, but seems nothing was added. I will ping in the matrix room, thanks for that.

Thank you very much, Cristian and Andrew.  I appreciate the review.

Documentation on RPM buildsystems in general is available here: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/buildsystem.html.  For the pyproject buildsystem particularly, you can see the relevant definitions at the bottom of /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.pyproject.

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

FEDORA-2025-965eddb308 (python-sphinx-thebe-0.3.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-965eddb308

FEDORA-2025-de7752244c (python-sphinx-thebe-0.3.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-de7752244c

FEDORA-2025-965eddb308 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-2025-965eddb308 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-965eddb308

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

FEDORA-2025-de7752244c 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-de7752244c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-de7752244c

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

FEDORA-2025-965eddb308 (python-sphinx-thebe-0.3.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-de7752244c (python-sphinx-thebe-0.3.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.