Bug 2462581

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10391093
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2462581-python-pipcl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10391093-python-pipcl/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.

pipcl used to be part of Artifex's PyMuPDF and has been factored out for reuse. Consequently, PyMuPDF 1.27.3 and above need python-pipcl for successful builds. I have verified that this works with my regular rebuilds of mupdf and PyMuPDF in copr here:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mjg/mupdf-git

These use https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mjg/python-pipcl for builds (or else they would fail).

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 matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-
     pipcl/2462581-python-pipcl/licensecheck.txt
[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 or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: 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
[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.
[ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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.
[ ]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pipcl-2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          python-pipcl-2-1.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/tmpd528f4fq')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-pipcl.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
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-pipcl.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/archive/v2/pipcl-2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 07294dfbfe7246297d934ef35c82e074bfb5965f1502b9fd201947f1b2b6bc41
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 07294dfbfe7246297d934ef35c82e074bfb5965f1502b9fd201947f1b2b6bc41
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/refs/heads/main/COPYING :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 57c8ff33c9c0cfc3ef00e650a1cc910d7ee479a8bc509f6c9209a7c2a11399d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 57c8ff33c9c0cfc3ef00e650a1cc910d7ee479a8bc509f6c9209a7c2a11399d6


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



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



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pipcl/2462581-python-pipcl/srpm/python-pipcl.spec	2026-04-27 11:47:40.962757703 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pipcl/2462581-python-pipcl/srpm-unpacked/python-pipcl.spec	2026-04-25 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -39,13 +39,4 @@
 %description -n python3-%{pypi_name} %_description
 
-%if %{with docs}
-%package	doc
-Summary:	Documentation for python-%{pypi_name}
-BuildArch:	noarch
-
-%description    doc
-python-%{pypi_name}-doc contains documentation for %{pypi_name}
-%endif
-
 %prep
 %autosetup -n %{pypi_name}-%{version} -p 1


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2462581
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Java, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Do consider building the documentation.  Sorry for the delay in importing
autodocsumm. Example build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=144900428

b) doctest seems like it can also be run if swig is installed on the system,
and a patch applied, see example build above.

c) As not all tests are run, consider adding
%pyproject_check_import
in the import section.

d) Unclear if the code is AGPL-3.0-only or AGPL-3.0-or-later, see:
https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/pipcl/pull/2

e) If the doc package will be separate from the main package, please add the
license file to it.

Thanks for the remarks and for prodding upstream about the license. I vaguely remember from the SPDX migration that AGPL 3.0 is automatically "or later", but I might be wrong, in any case pyproject.toml should agree.

I have updated spec and srpm at the mentioned URLs (hopefully consistent this time - sorry) and also pushed my spec branch here:

https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/

This should be able to build as soon as autodocsumm landed in the compose.

Does the new spec address the review remarks?

Comments:

a) Please change:

The spec file at
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/plain/python-pipcl.spec
is mostly ok, though is not the same as what is at

https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec

b) Upstream has not updated the license information.  As AGPL-3.0-only is
more restrictive than AGPL-3.0-or-later unless you have other information
from upstream, suggest to use AGPL-3.0-only

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #6)
> Comments:
> 
> a) Please change:
> 
> The spec file at
> https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mjg/public_git/python-pipcl.git/plain/python-
> pipcl.spec
> is mostly ok, though is not the same as what is at
> 
> https://mjg.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-pipcl.spec

because I had omitted the rpmdev part of the path when copying, sorry.

Corrected with the stricter license as per:

> b) Upstream has not updated the license information.  As AGPL-3.0-only is
> more restrictive than AGPL-3.0-or-later unless you have other information
> from upstream, suggest to use AGPL-3.0-only

git, spec and srpm should be in sync now, as well as the copr build which succeeds on rawhide and F44 now where autodocsumm has landed.