Bug 2440706

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10148991
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440706-python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10148991-python-cyclopts/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.

hi, i might take the review on this one. can you please post the original spec file? the one you posted looks like it has been mangled by rpmautospec already.

Hi, Tobi! Here's the original srpm/spec

SPEC URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts.spec
SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts-4.5.3-1.fc45.src.rpm

Created attachment 2130612 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10148991 to 10159265

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10159265
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440706-python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10159265-python-cyclopts/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.

I believe the build is failing because of a missing SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION_FOR_CYCLOPTS declaration in the %generate_buildrequires section. And I'm assuming you're using the github sources instead of pypi tarballs because the latter doesn't include tests; is that right?

there are more things wrong with the latest specfile. please let me know when you fixed the build and i can continue reviewing. :)

Hi, Tobi! Thanks for taking a look at it, here's the updated version. 

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r0x0d/python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10167402-python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r0x0d/python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10167402-python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc45.src.rpm

They have updated to version 4.6.0 in the meantime of this review, however, I found out a couple of strange things while fixing the `SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION_FOR_CYCLOPTS` in the spec. For some reason, directly adding SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION_FOR_CYCLOPTS=%{version} does not work as it should, but `SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION_FOR=%{version}` works fine... Not sure why the automated copr build above failed, but I have one that worked previously.

* Working version without the FOR_%{DIST}: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r0x0d/python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10148988-python-cyclopts/builder-live.log.gz
* Failed version with the FOR_%{DIST}: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r0x0d/python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10167233-python-cyclopts/builder-live.log.gz

I've decided to take a different approach and patch the pyproject.toml directly with the version, and while this is not the best approach for this, at least a new build should be able for the automated service.

the automated review looks good, but i have some more comments:

i'm less of a fan of the pyproject.toml patch - this seems like a recipe for getting the %{version} of sync with the patch. if SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION (without FOR_XXX suffix) works, i'd suggest going that route.

rpmlint has some sensible suggestions:

python3-cyclopts.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Intuitive, easy CLIs based on type hints.
^ simple fix ;-)
python3-cyclopts.noarch: W: no-documentation
^ seems like it should be fairly straight-forward to include the documentation; https://github.com/BrianPugh/cyclopts/tree/main/docs contains a Makefile automating the sphinx process.
python3-cyclopts.noarch: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/cyclopts/py.typed /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/cyclopts/ext/__init__.py
^ not sure why that's the case - looking at the tarball both of these are just empty files. so i'd guess a false-positive

also, i'd rather review the un-mangled spec file :) but i made do with what i'm given. 

the spec file contains a "# Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora" comment - that probably should go away (just a nit, though).

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "*No copyright* Apache License". 330 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/tmp.lMS2z8Zu3e/2440706-python-
     cyclopts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.14
[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.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-cyclopts , python3-cyclopts+mkdocs , python3-cyclopts+trio ,
     python3-cyclopts+toml , python3-cyclopts+yaml
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== 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.

Hi, Tobi! Sorry for taking so long to update this, but here it is:

Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts.spec
SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc45.src.rpm

It took me a long time to get sphinx to build the docs properly just to generate the manpages for it. I think the project looks more complete now, as I added the README.md as one doc source, and the cyclopts.1 as manpage.

Created attachment 2131819 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10159265 to 10185522

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185522
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440706-python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185522-python-cyclopts/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://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts.spec
SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-cyclopts/python-cyclopts-4.6.0-2.fc45.src.rpm

Posting again as I missed the "-n cyclopts-%{version}" in the previous one.

Created attachment 2131987 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10185522 to 10189685

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10189685
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440706-python-cyclopts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10189685-python-cyclopts/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.

oh, i did not expect it to take this much work to get docs built. sorry; should have been clearer that this was an optional item. as a packager/reviewer, i'm fine with you not keeping the docs, if you would rather do that (but as a user, i do appreciate them being there).
also, the spec file is beautifully documented!

anyways: package approved - thank you!

---

note that i was having trouble with fedora-review, even rebuilding the SRPM did not fix it:

    ERROR: 'Source5 file /tmp/tmp.bmJDBUO7Ze/2440706-python-cyclopts/x/review-python-cyclopts/srpm-unpacked/objects.inv is missing in src.rpm. Conditional source inclusion?'

hence, this final round of review was done with that failure patched out in the FedoraReview python package. i believe this to simply be a shortcoming of fedora-review w.r.t source renaming and therefore that this is still a valid review.


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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "*No copyright* Apache License". 324 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/tmp.Xxqvuht8qr/2440706-python-
     cyclopts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14,
     /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[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]: 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 9879 bytes in 1 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.
[-]: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-cyclopts , python3-cyclopts+mkdocs , python3-cyclopts+trio ,
     python3-cyclopts+toml , python3-cyclopts+yaml
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Thank you, Tobi! <3

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

FEDORA-2026-9772956b92 (python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9772956b92

FEDORA-2026-e06a8bf98a (python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e06a8bf98a

FEDORA-2026-7c43fab845 (python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-7c43fab845

FEDORA-2026-7c43fab845 (python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-e06a8bf98a 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-2026-e06a8bf98a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e06a8bf98a

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

FEDORA-2026-9772956b92 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-9772956b92 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9772956b92

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

FEDORA-2026-9772956b92 (python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-e06a8bf98a (python-cyclopts-4.6.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.