Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/xnat4tests/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06880637-python-xnat4tests/python-xnat4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/xnat4tests/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06880637-python-xnat4tests/python-xnat4tests-0.3.10-2.fc40.src.rpm Description: Xnat4Tests runs a basic XNAT repository instance in a single Docker to be used for quick demonstrations on your workstation or integrated within test suites for tools that use XNAT’s REST API. Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/xnat4tests/build/6880637/
Package depends on `python-sgqlc` (see bug 2257921). For building / testing locally run `dnf copr enable gui1ty/xnat4tests` in order to get the missing dependencies.
Sigh. CopyPasta gone wrong... Package depends on `python-medimages4tests` (see bug 2257921). For building / testing locally run `dnf copr enable gui1ty/xnat4tests` in order to get the missing dependencies.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6885528 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257923-python-xnat4tests/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06885528-python-xnat4tests/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 clearly contains *code* under the CC0-1.0 license, which is not-allowed for code in Fedora. (The trove classifier "License :: OSI Approved :: Apache Software License" conflicts with the LICENSE file, which is certainly CC0-1.0.) I think you will need to ask upstream to consider relicensing, or give up on running the tests that require this.
As for bug 2257921, I'll ask upstream (same organization) to consider relicensing.
Upstream has relicensed the package under Apache-2.0. I'm reopening the review request. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-xnat4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-xnat4tests-0.3.12-1.fc43.src.rpm
A working build with medimages4tests can be found in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/xnat/builds/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8920213 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257923-python-xnat4tests/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08920213-python-xnat4tests/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.
Implemented the suggestions made for `medimages4tests` in bug 2257921. Both packages are very similar and from the same organization. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-xnat4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-xnat4tests-0.3.12%5e20250417git9529352-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2086333 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8920213 to 8950901
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8950901 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257923-python-xnat4tests/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08950901-python-xnat4tests/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.
At a quick first glance, this looks really good. Can you please update to 0.3.13, released four days ago, which includes the license change?
Updated to latest release. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-xnat4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-xnat4tests-0.3.13-1.fc43.src.rpm
This looks just fine! Package APPROVED. Package Review ============== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2257923-python-xnat4tests/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 (Spurious; python3-libs owns these) [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. [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 5850 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. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. There is only one test, but it passes! [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132869699 [x]: %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-xnat4tests-0.3.13-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-xnat4tests-0.3.13-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuq4620cc')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-xnat4tests.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/xnat4tests/testing.py python-xnat4tests.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-Update-Versioneer-and-fix-config.patch python3-xnat4tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x4t python3-xnat4tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xnat4tests 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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-xnat4tests.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/xnat4tests/testing.py python3-xnat4tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x4t python3-xnat4tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xnat4tests 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/australian-imaging-service/xnat4tests/archive/v0.3.13/xnat4tests-0.3.13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a791fecd8354efe23904671537fdb2287d02bc89246011167cee132d78112018 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a791fecd8354efe23904671537fdb2287d02bc89246011167cee132d78112018 Requires -------- python3-xnat4tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(click) python3.13dist(docker) python3.13dist(medimages4tests) python3.13dist(pyyaml) python3.13dist(requests) python3.13dist(xnat) Provides -------- python3-xnat4tests: python-xnat4tests python3-xnat4tests python3.13-xnat4tests python3.13dist(xnat4tests) python3dist(xnat4tests) xnat4tests Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2257923-python-xnat4tests/srpm/python-xnat4tests.spec 2025-05-17 07:13:51.239020309 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2257923-python-xnat4tests/srpm-unpacked/python-xnat4tests.spec 2025-05-16 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## 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 + %global pypi_name xnat4tests @@ -109,3 +119,24 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat May 17 2025 Sandro <devel> - 0.3.13-1 +- Update to 0.3.13 + +* Mon Apr 21 2025 Sandro <devel> - 0.3.12^20250417git9529352-1 +- Apply changes for review +- Use a post-release for license change +- Fix License: field +- Fix Versioneer +- Review steps in prep +- Add `.rpmlintrc` regading zero-length error + +* Fri Apr 18 2025 Sandro <devel> - 0.3.12-1 +- Update to 0.3.12 +- Change license to Apache-2.0 + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.3.10-2 +- Fix issues and pecularities + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.3.10-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257923 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, R, C/C++, Java, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review.
FEDORA-2025-8d4294af6b (python-xnat4tests-0.3.14-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8d4294af6b
FEDORA-2025-8d4294af6b (python-xnat4tests-0.3.14-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.