Bug 2491110

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10620908
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2491110-python-exa-py/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10620908-python-exa-py/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.

Looks very good. A few issues that are worth looking into:


- rpmlint flags:

    python-exa-py.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
    python3-exa-py.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
     2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 

^^^
    minor issue, please remove the period at the end of the summary

- Latest version is packaged.
^^^
The latest version is 2.14.0---we should be packaging this.

- %check is present and all tests pass.
^^^
While the pypi tar does not include unit tests, the github tar does. I would recommend using that and running the unit tests.


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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or
     generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2491110-python-exa-
     py/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.15
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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 2810 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.
[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).
[!]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
^
The latest version is 2.14.0---we should be packaging this.

[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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
^
While the pypi tar does not include unit tests, the github tar does. I would recommend using that and running the unit tests.

[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-exa-py-2.10.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          python-exa-py-2.10.2-1.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/tmpxx381e5o')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-exa-py.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
python3-exa-py.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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-exa-py.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
 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/e/exa_py/exa_py-2.10.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f781f30b199f1102333384728adae64bb15a6bbcabfa97e91fd705f90acffc45
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f781f30b199f1102333384728adae64bb15a6bbcabfa97e91fd705f90acffc45


Requires
--------
python3-exa-py (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.15dist(httpcore)
    python3.15dist(httpx)
    python3.15dist(openai)
    python3.15dist(pydantic)
    python3.15dist(python-dotenv)
    python3.15dist(requests)
    python3.15dist(typing-extensions)



Provides
--------
python3-exa-py:
    python-exa-py
    python3-exa-py
    python3.15-exa-py
    python3.15dist(exa-py)
    python3dist(exa-py)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2491110
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2)
> Looks very good. A few issues that are worth looking into:
> 
> 
> - rpmlint flags:
> 
>     python-exa-py.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
>     python3-exa-py.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
>      2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0
> badness; has taken 0.6 s 
> 
> ^^^
>     minor issue, please remove the period at the end of the summary

Fixed.

> 
> - Latest version is packaged.
> ^^^
> The latest version is 2.14.0---we should be packaging this.

This package is built because of building hermes-agent 0.14.0, that pins at exa-py 2.10.2.
exa-py will be updated to newer version when building newer versions of hermes-agnet.

> 
> - %check is present and all tests pass.
> ^^^
> While the pypi tar does not include unit tests, the github tar does. I would
> recommend using that and running the unit tests.
>

Upstream git repository does not have tag for version 2.10.2. This will be fixed along with building newer version of hermes-agent.

(In reply to Chenxiong Qi from comment #3)
> (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2)
> > Looks very good. A few issues that are worth looking into:
> > 
> > 
> > - rpmlint flags:
> > 
> >     python-exa-py.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
> >     python3-exa-py.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python SDK for Exa API.
> >      2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0
> > badness; has taken 0.6 s 
> > 
> > ^^^
> >     minor issue, please remove the period at the end of the summary
> 
> Fixed.

+1

> 
> > 
> > - Latest version is packaged.
> > ^^^
> > The latest version is 2.14.0---we should be packaging this.
> 
> This package is built because of building hermes-agent 0.14.0, that pins at
> exa-py 2.10.2.
> exa-py will be updated to newer version when building newer versions of
> hermes-agnet.

The only place where they seem to use it is here:

https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/blob/c93b9f9057e4d9db61ef3cabef59491bbfdbe5ec/plugins/web/exa/provider.py#L70

I think you can safely unpin it and test out hermes-agent. I dont' expect anything to break. 

It's sort of expected of us package maintainers to help upstream developers port their code to newer versions of libraries/dependencies---because newer versions include bugfixes/features. 

Also, this package, even if it's primarily being packaged for hermes-agent is a system-wide package that can be used by users and other packages---it's not a private package that is only consumed by hermes-agent. So, while the guidelines don't explicitly require it, it'll be good to package the latest release so that other users/packagers do get the benefits of bugfixes/enhancements.

> 
> > 
> > - %check is present and all tests pass.
> > ^^^
> > While the pypi tar does not include unit tests, the github tar does. I would
> > recommend using that and running the unit tests.
> >
> 
> Upstream git repository does not have tag for version 2.10.2. This will be
> fixed along with building newer version of hermes-agent.

Cool. I may be a good idea to file a ticket asking upstream to consistently tag their git repo to match pypi releases too---it makes life a lot easier for downstream consumers.

XXX APPROVED XXX

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-exa-py
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`