Bug 2539189

> W: no-%check-section

Please add at least pyproject_check_import https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests

> E: description-line-too-long After conversion, you can integrate the Core ML models with your app using Xcode.

Please wrap it on 80 characters.

> License:       BSD-3-Clause
I think you miss licenses declared in NOTICE.txt. And there are several files in deps/ directory that uses various licenses. I did not yet check if the code is actually using it or you unbundled it.
I run:
  scancode --license --license-references --html /tmp/output.html .  && firefox /tmp/output.html
to check the licenses.

(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #1)
> > W: no-%check-section
> 
> Please add at least pyproject_check_import
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests

I've added it but still disabled as it tests against tensorflow and some other bits we don't have (yet) in Fedora. Looking through those to disable explicit tests or fix. Updating this quickly for the rest of the updates.
 
> > E: description-line-too-long After conversion, you can integrate the Core ML models with your app using Xcode.
> 
> Please wrap it on 80 characters.

Fixes, thought I had them all in 80.

> > License:       BSD-3-Clause
> I think you miss licenses declared in NOTICE.txt. And there are several
> files in deps/ directory that uses various licenses. I did not yet check if
> the code is actually using it or you unbundled it.

I unbundled, I put an explicit rm in prep now. Also note vendor note here: https://github.com/apple/coremltools?tab=contributing-ov-file

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-coremltools.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-coremltools-9.0-2.fc44.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=150578150

> I unbundled,

But the https://github.com/apple/coremltools/blob/main/NOTICE.txt still mentions files directly in coremltools that uses different license.

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-coremltools.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-coremltools-9.0-3.fc44.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=150786812

> But the https://github.com/apple/coremltools/blob/main/NOTICE.txt still mentions files directly in coremltools that uses different license.

I ran scancode over the prepped (with all the various removals) and it reported all as the BSD license. In the NOTICE.txt which uses terms like "content adapted from file XXX" so I'm unsure exactly how you report that license as and would love feedback on that as IANAL there for that interpretation.

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

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



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

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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.
[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 3037 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:
[-]: 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.
[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.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Present but disabled for now.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define with_tests 0
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


APPROVED

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

FEDORA-2026-58ede69f27 (python-coremltools-9.0-3.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-58ede69f27

FEDORA-2026-58ede69f27 has been pushed to the Fedora 45 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-58ede69f27`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-58ede69f27

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

FEDORA-2026-58ede69f27 (python-coremltools-9.0-3.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.