Bug 2302515 - Review Request: python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch - A Snakemake executor plugin for submitting jobs to Microsoft Azure Batch
Summary: Review Request: python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch - A Snakemake ex...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-08-02 14:23 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2024-11-20 16:46 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-11-11 14:38:23 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2024-08-02 14:23:12 UTC
Spec URL: https://music.fedroapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedroapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Description:

A Snakemake executor plugin for submitting jobs to Microsoft Azure Batch.

Fedora Account System Username: music

This will be a neuro-sig package. See https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issue/569.

Comment 1 Kyle Gospodnetich 2024-08-03 04:01:40 UTC
Hi there, this is an "unofficial" review as I am not yet a Fedora packager.

Your spec file URL and SRPM URL have a typo, correct URLs appear to be:
https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch.spec
https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

I attempted to build this locally however even with the @copr/PyPI repo enabled this fails due to the following missing packages:
python3dist(azure-batch)
python3dist(azure-identity)
python3dist(azure-storage-blob)

If these are also being requested can you link them here?

Outside of that, your spec file looks good to me. I am curious about the tests requiring Azure credentials. Is there no way that can be worked around for offline builds?

Thanks!

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2024-08-05 16:24:07 UTC
(In reply to Kyle Gospodnetich from comment #1)
> Hi there, this is an "unofficial" review as I am not yet a Fedora packager.

Thank you!

> Your spec file URL and SRPM URL have a typo, correct URLs appear to be:
> https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch.
> spec
> https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-
> 0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Agreed, and thank you for the correction.

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

> I attempted to build this locally however even with the @copr/PyPI repo
> enabled this fails due to the following missing packages:
> python3dist(azure-batch)
> python3dist(azure-identity)
> python3dist(azure-storage-blob)
> 
> If these are also being requested can you link them here?

Fedora packages are normally reviewed for Rawhide, and this is the default for the very helpful fedora-review tool (https://pagure.io/FedoraReview). In this case, the necessary dependencies are only available in Rawhide/F41 – they are present in F40 and F39, but the versions are too old. This package will therefore be for F41 and later. Try this:

$ fedora-review -b 2302515

Note that fedora-review is extremely useful, bit it does have some bugs and outdated advice, so you still need to use your own judgement and refer to the Packaging Guidelines as the authoritative description of how things should be done.

For a simple build without additional review-related checking, this works:

$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild ./python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

> 
> Outside of that, your spec file looks good to me. I am curious about the
> tests requiring Azure credentials. Is there no way that can be worked around
> for offline builds?

I am not aware of anything that can mock the Azure cloud infrastructure, no.

For AWS there is https://pypi.org/project/moto/ , but it’s still not packaged for Fedora due to its very extensive tree of dependencies, and it’s also not necessarily trivial to “plug in” moto downstream if upstream hasn’t already integrated it.

Comment 3 Kyle Gospodnetich 2024-08-06 18:51:23 UTC
> This package will therefore be for F41 and later
That makes sense! The fc40 in the SRPM URL threw me. I've re-tested the build against rawhide, below is the review:

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

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



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

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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", "MIT License". 20 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-
     batch/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib,
     /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages,
     /usr
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc,
     /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13,
     /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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 4614 bytes in 2 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpdbg3y7qg')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
checks: 32, packages: 1

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch/archive/v0.3.0/snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0eb27d8d68cbb69705d1fce394af8f602d21febca214d70ef309f86037f99cd0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0eb27d8d68cbb69705d1fce394af8f602d21febca214d70ef309f86037f99cd0


Requires
--------
python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.13dist(azure-batch) < 15~~ with python3.13dist(azure-batch) >= 14.2)
    (python3.13dist(azure-identity) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(azure-identity) >= 1.17.1)
    (python3.13dist(azure-mgmt-batch) < 18~~ with python3.13dist(azure-mgmt-batch) >= 17)
    (python3.13dist(azure-storage-blob) < 13~~ with python3.13dist(azure-storage-blob) >= 12.20)
    (python3.13dist(msrest) < 0.8~~ with python3.13dist(msrest) >= 0.7.1)
    (python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-common) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-common) >= 1.17.2)
    (python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-executor-plugins) < 10~~ with python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-executor-plugins) >= 9.2)
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch:
    python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch
    python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch
    python3.13-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch
    python3.13dist(snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch)
    python3dist(snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, R, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

> I am not aware of anything that can mock the Azure cloud infrastructure, no.

Understood, in that case it all looks great to me!

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2024-08-06 19:21:59 UTC
Thanks again for the preliminary/unofficial review!

Note that to do a full review, you would need to go through everything fedora-review did not have an opinion on ([ ]) and evaluate it yourself. It’s also good to double-check the list of installed files, the final Requires, and any rpmlint remssages for sanity, skim the spec file for anything “weird,” and do a check (mostly using licensecheck.txt from the review directory) for any additional licenses or bundled libraries that the submitter might have missed.

For fedora-review messages like
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib,
     /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages,
     /usr
see https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/515.

Comment 5 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2024-11-11 13:40:22 UTC
Sorry, I thought I'd uploaded my review already! Re-doing it now.

Comment 6 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2024-11-11 13:47:17 UTC
Looks good XXX APPROVED XXX

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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 20 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
     reviews/2302515-python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-
     batch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13,
     /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 4614 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:
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
^
Import tests run

[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
=================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpxpvdd3kp')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

============================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==============================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch/archive/v0.3.0/snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0eb27d8d68cbb69705d1fce394af8f602d21febca214d70ef309f86037f99cd0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0eb27d8d68cbb69705d1fce394af8f602d21febca214d70ef309f86037f99cd0


Requires
--------
python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.13dist(azure-batch) < 15~~ with python3.13dist(azure-batch) >= 14.2)
    (python3.13dist(azure-identity) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(azure-identity) >= 1.17.1)
    (python3.13dist(azure-mgmt-batch) < 18~~ with python3.13dist(azure-mgmt-batch) >= 17)
    (python3.13dist(azure-storage-blob) < 13~~ with python3.13dist(azure-storage-blob) >= 12.20)
    (python3.13dist(msrest) < 0.8~~ with python3.13dist(msrest) >= 0.7.1)
    (python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-common) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-common) >= 1.17.2)
    (python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-executor-plugins) < 10~~ with python3.13dist(snakemake-interface-executor-plugins) >= 9.2)
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch:
    python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch
    python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch
    python3.13-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch
    python3.13dist(snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch)
    python3dist(snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2302515
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 7 Ben Beasley 2024-11-11 14:03:51 UTC
Thank you for the review!

https://release-monitoring.org/project/375428/

Comment 8 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-11-11 14:07:56 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2024-11-11 14:33:35 UTC
FEDORA-2024-5509b164e2 (python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5509b164e2

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2024-11-11 14:38:23 UTC
FEDORA-2024-5509b164e2 (python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2024-11-11 15:15:40 UTC
FEDORA-2024-40c82b794f (python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-40c82b794f

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2024-11-12 02:06:48 UTC
FEDORA-2024-40c82b794f has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-40c82b794f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-40c82b794f

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

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2024-11-20 16:46:00 UTC
FEDORA-2024-40c82b794f (python-snakemake-executor-plugin-azure-batch-0.3.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.