Bug 2443838

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185507
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443838-python-pydocket/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185507-python-pydocket/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.

This package depends on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fakeredis/pull-request/2 and is currently in review. Once this get merged, the builds should start to pass (at least, for rawhide).

Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket.spec
SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc45.src.rpm


The above PR#2 is now merged, so I will be posting it again to check if the builds passes here too.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10195006
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443838-python-pydocket/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10195006-python-pydocket/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.

Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket.spec
SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc45.src.rpm

Created attachment 2133104 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10195006 to 10218181

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10218181
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443838-python-pydocket/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10218181-python-pydocket/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

I'll review it

The package is in a good shape, I don't see any critical issues except License field adjustment required and packaged 0.17.9 while 0.18.2 is available (both noted below) so here is my formal

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license (MIT).
     Although the entire package is licensed under MIT, the only file - ./src/docket/_prometheus_exporter.py
     is licensed under Apache-2.0. Please adjust License field accordingly
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format (%autochangelog).
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No separate development files.
[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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[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 4789 bytes in 2 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is 0.18.2 while you packaged 0.17.9. Is it intentional?
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep.
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on
     all supported architectures. It is noarch anyway.
[x]: %check is present but checks only for imports.
[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)

^^^ This is fine.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp663fft92')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-pydocket.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary docket
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s 

^^^ That's expected. We don't have man-pages.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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-pydocket.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary docket
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pydocket/pydocket-0.17.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4b98b9951303fba2b77649969539d501500cd0b0e5accc27e03b16c25a76f3e6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b98b9951303fba2b77649969539d501500cd0b0e5accc27e03b16c25a76f3e6


Requires
--------
python3-pydocket (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(cloudpickle)
    python3.14dist(croniter)
    python3.14dist(fakeredis)
    python3.14dist(fakeredis[lua])
    python3.14dist(opentelemetry-api)
    python3.14dist(prometheus-client)
    python3.14dist(py-key-value-aio)
    python3.14dist(py-key-value-aio[memory])
    python3.14dist(py-key-value-aio[redis])
    python3.14dist(python-json-logger)
    python3.14dist(redis)
    python3.14dist(rich)
    python3.14dist(typer)
    python3.14dist(typing-extensions)



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



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2443838-python-pydocket/srpm/python-pydocket.spec	2026-03-13 16:06:45.631899466 +0100
+++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2443838-python-pydocket/srpm-unpacked/python-pydocket.spec	2026-03-12 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3)
+## 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
+
 Name:           python-pydocket
 Version:        0.17.9
@@ -76,3 +86,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Thu Mar 12 2026 Rodolfo Olivieri <rodolfo.olivieri3> - 0.17.9-1
+- Initial commit for python-pydocket
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2443838
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, R, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Please address/comment issues I mentioned above and we continue.

Hi, Peter! Thanks a lot for the review. Here is the updated specfile/srpm: 

Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket.spec
SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket-0.17.9-2.fc45.src.rpm

Regarding it not being in the latest version, it's because they introduced two new dependencies that is not packaged yet in Fedora. Would you prefer me to take care of those extra dependencies, and then come back to this? 

uncalled-for: https://github.com/chrisguidry/docket/blob/main/pyproject.toml#L40
cronsim: https://github.com/chrisguidry/docket/blob/main/pyproject.toml#L27

Created attachment 2133403 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10218181 to 10226024

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10226024
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443838-python-pydocket/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10226024-python-pydocket/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.

(In reply to Rodolfo Olivieri from comment #10)
> Hi, Peter! Thanks a lot for the review. Here is the updated specfile/srpm: 
> 
> Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-pydocket/python-pydocket-0.17.9-2.fc45.
> src.rpm
> 
> Regarding it not being in the latest version, it's because they introduced
> two new dependencies that is not packaged yet in Fedora. Would you prefer me
> to take care of those extra dependencies, and then come back to this? 

Let's better move forward with what we got. In the meantime try packaging these dependencies.

OK, I don't see any other issues so this package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

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

FEDORA-2026-50a831ed87 (python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-50a831ed87

FEDORA-2026-50a831ed87 (python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.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-e27cc663b0 (python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e27cc663b0

FEDORA-2026-fe5a9015a5 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-fe5a9015a5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fe5a9015a5

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

FEDORA-2026-e27cc663b0 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-e27cc663b0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e27cc663b0

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

FEDORA-2026-fe5a9015a5 (python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.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-e27cc663b0 (python-pydocket-0.17.9-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.