Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme-22.3.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: This provides a Hatch metadata plugin for everyone who cares about the first impression of their project’s PyPI landing page. It allows you to define your PyPI project description in terms of concatenated fragments that are based on static strings, files, and most importantly: parts of files defined using cut-off points or regular expressions. Fedora Account System Username: pnemade
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91519810
I'm still rather new to packaging and package reviews and I'm looking for a sponsor. That said, the package looks good. Only one real issue and a requires that need clarification. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file AUTHORS.md is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ^^AUTHORS.md should be included in %doc or dropped. - Requires python3.11dist(hatchling) (see below) ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/devel/fedora/2123618-python-hatch-fancy- pypi-readme/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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. [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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hatch-fancy-pypi-readme 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7d4651f8f07825931c92873cb51137214a938badb7a759b85c1d95bf74f86efa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d4651f8f07825931c92873cb51137214a938badb7a759b85c1d95bf74f86efa Requires -------- python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(hatchling) ^^^According to the pyproject.toml this appears to be a build requirement only. Provides -------- python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme: python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme python3.11-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme python3.11dist(hatch-fancy-pypi-readme) python3dist(hatch-fancy-pypi-readme) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2123618 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Sandro from comment #2) Thank you for having a look at this package. > Issues: > ======= > - 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. > Note: License file AUTHORS.md is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text > > ^^AUTHORS.md should be included in %doc or dropped. Actually this file is getting installed, hence fedora-review tool considering it as license file and asking to mark it as %license /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS.md but it should not get installed in that location. Reported upstream https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/issues/8 > > Requires > -------- > python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) > python3.11dist(hatchling) > > ^^^According to the pyproject.toml this appears to be a build requirement > only. > but i see it is also runtime required package src/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme/hooks.py:9:from hatchling.metadata.plugin.interface import MetadataHookInterface
(In reply to Parag Nemade from comment #3) > (In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > > Thank you for having a look at this package. > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - 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. > > Note: License file AUTHORS.md is not marked as %license > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text > > > > ^^AUTHORS.md should be included in %doc or dropped. > > Actually this file is getting installed, hence fedora-review tool > considering it as license file and asking to mark it as %license > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/ > licenses/AUTHORS.md > > but it should not get installed in that location. Reported upstream > https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/issues/8 I had some fun this afternoon, trying to get rid of AUTHORS.md in all kind of ways. When finally I succeeded, the tests would no longer pass: =================================== FAILURES =================================== ___________________________ TestCLIEndToEnd.test_ok ____________________________ self = <tests.test_cli.TestCLIEndToEnd object at 0x7f68243a6a90> def test_ok(self): """ A valid config is rendered. """ > out = run("hatch_fancy_pypi_readme", "tests/example_pyproject.toml") tests/test_cli.py:52: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ check = True, args = ('hatch_fancy_pypi_readme', 'tests/example_pyproject.toml') process = CompletedProcess(args=['/usr/bin/python3', '-m', 'hatch_fancy_pypi_readme', 'tests/example_pyproject.toml'], returncod...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\nFileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: \'AUTHORS.md\'\n') There's something fishy about AUTHORS.md. It should definitely not be installed in the license directory inside the whl archive. Not sure if this is a bug or an incomplete pyproject.toml. Best to get clarification from upstream. > > > > Requires > > -------- > > python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > /usr/bin/python3 > > python(abi) > > python3.11dist(hatchling) > > > > ^^^According to the pyproject.toml this appears to be a build requirement > > only. > > > > but i see it is also runtime required package > src/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme/hooks.py:9:from > hatchling.metadata.plugin.interface import MetadataHookInterface You are right. It's a build as well as a runtime dependency. And the requires is determined by rpmbuild itself. So, all good on this issue.
One more (minor) thing I forgot to mention: I would suggest using consistent naming in the BuildRequires. You added some for running the tests. For consistency and better readability I would change these to: BuildRequires: python3-build BuildRequires: python3-wheel BuildRequires: python3-pytest
About AUTHORS.md: This file is insalled as a regular file because hatch does not make it as a license file in the metadata (yet), see https://github.com/pypa/hatch/issues/193 I see no point in removing it though. You can mark it as %doc or %license if you prefer to do so by duplicate listing it in %files as %doc %{python3_siteleib}/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS.md %license %{python3_siteleib}/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.txt
Created attachment 1909545 [details] Remove unused dependency from pyproject.toml With the attached patch included in the spec file you can drop all BuildRequires for running tests and add -t to %pyproject_buildrequires. That will pull in all dependencies automatically. Upstream has removed the troublesome pytest-icdiff in main already. That will leave you with a very clean spec file ready for future updates. The BuildRequires for pyproject-rpm-macros is not needed, either.
Please also drop coverage[toml], as did upstream. See https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/commit/6c06d7244183c5b71aed905c9950e3206e5f0a9e
Created attachment 1909546 [details] Updated patch removing unused/unwanted dependencies (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #8) > Please also drop coverage[toml], as did upstream. The updated patch now removes both.
Fixed both the issues above discussed. Just can someone confirm if installation of this dynamic buildrequires python3-tox-current-env is really correct? Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme-22.3.0-2.fc37.src.rpm Koji scratch build -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91647499
> Just can someone confirm if installation of this dynamic buildrequires python3-tox-current-env is really correct? -t stands for tox. It uses tox-current-env. So yes, this is correct. However, since this does not use %tox in %check you might want to limit the dependencies by using: %pyproject_buildrequires -x tests See https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/blob/22.3.0/pyproject.toml#L50 That way, the package won't buildreuire tox(-current-env).
Correction: %pyproject_buildrequires -w -x tests
Thank you for your quick reply. As this is minor update, I just regenerated -2 release of this package. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme-22.3.0-2.fc37.src.rpm Rawhide Scratch build -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91653503
(In reply to Parag Nemade from comment #10) > Fixed both the issues above discussed. Unfortunately, that leads to a duplicate file warning for AUTHORS.md in addition to the warning that the file is not marked as %license. I provided a patch to the pyproject.toml file in the bug you reported upstream: https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/issues/8#issuecomment-1236845515 With that patch applied, you can simply add the AUTHORS.md file to %doc (same as README.md) as it will no longer be installed.
Based on upstream discussions, I think we should be good with using the update I provided above -2 release for this package in Fedora. Can someone please do official review and approve it. I need this to build new python-jsonschema package in rawhide.
Created attachment 1910404 [details] Patch solving AUTHORS.md installed in licenses For version -2 fedora-review reports the issues below: Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - 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. Note: License file AUTHORS.md is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text The first one is new and needs to be addressed. The second one has already been discussed. Both would be addressed by attached patch and adding AUTHORS.md to %doc. Since I'm not in packagers group, yet, and cannot approve the review, I will leave the final say to someone who can. Maybe Miro would be able to take over, if he's got time.
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is known and done deliberately. No need to fix. - 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. Note: License file AUTHORS.md is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text AUTHORS is not a license. This is a bogus report. I'd gladly review this package officially but I am traveling and will be at a conference until the end of this week. So I am not assigning this Bugzilla to myself just yet in case somebody else wants to beat me to it.
Running Fedora review. In the meantime, I re-read the spec file. > %global pypi_name hatch-fancy-pypi-readme (opinionated, feel free to ignore me) Defining a macro like this and reusing it in the spec file makes the spec file harder to read. Especially since the string hatch_fancy_pypi_readme needs to be used on several places instead. > %autosetup -n hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-%{version} (opinionated, feel free to ignore me) Consider using -p1 here from the beginning, so no change is required when a patch is added from upstream. > # https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/commit/6c06d7244183c5b71aed905c9950e3206e5f0a9e > sed -i 's/ \"pytest-icdiff\", \"coverage\[toml\]\", //g' pyproject.toml (strongly suggested) Add a human-readable comment that summarizes this change, e.g: # Drop unwanted build dependencies that upstream already dropped > %pyproject_buildrequires -w (strongly suggested) Considering -w is provisional and hatch no longer needs it since https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hatchling/pull-request/16 I suggest dropping -w.
Package Review ============== Package APPRVOED. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/2123618-python- hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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 ------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hatch-fancy-pypi-readme 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hatch-fancy-pypi-readme 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7d4651f8f07825931c92873cb51137214a938badb7a759b85c1d95bf74f86efa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d4651f8f07825931c92873cb51137214a938badb7a759b85c1d95bf74f86efa BuildRequires ------------- (python3dist(toml) if python3-devel < 3.11) pyproject-rpm-macros python3-devel python3dist(build) python3dist(hatchling) python3dist(packaging) python3dist(pip) >= 19 python3dist(pytest) python3dist(wheel) Requires -------- python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.11 python3.11dist(hatchling) Provides -------- python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme: python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme = 22.3.0-2.fc38 python3-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme = 22.3.0-2.fc38 python3.11-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme = 22.3.0-2.fc38 python3.11dist(hatch-fancy-pypi-readme) = 22.3 python3dist(hatch-fancy-pypi-readme) = 22.3 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2123618 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, R, PHP, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Ruby, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you Miro for this detailed package review. I have included all your suggestions here. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme-22.3.0-2.fc37.src.rpm
%global pypi_name hatch-fancy-pypi-readme This is now redundant. I have reviewed the changes, looks great :)
Thank you. I will take care of that at the time of package import.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme
Also note that I am working on bz2127946 which will mark %{python3_sitelib}/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-%{version}.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS.md as %license, not %doc. You might want to make that consistent or remove the hack entirely and consider it to be fixed eventually.
I am planning to add this package to Fedora 37 and EPEL9 as well. Will that fix be available in F37 and EPEL9 as well?
Yes for Fedora 37. For EPEL 9 it is a bit more complex. The package is not in EPEL but in RHEL, but the fix will eventually land there. However, if python-hatchling is not updated in EPEL 9, it will still not work there.