Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/bids-schema.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/bids-schema-0.10.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Portions of the BIDS specification are defined using YAML files in order to make the specification machine-readable. Currently the portions of the specification that rely on this schema are: • the entity tables, • entity definitions, • filename templates, • metadata tables. Any changes to the specification should be mirrored in the schema. Fedora Account System Username: music This also ships a Python library as python3-bidsschematools. I decided that the *schema*, not the Python library, was the “main” part of the package, which is why the source package is called bids-schema rather than python-bidsschematools. The Python library is shipped from the same source RPM because it is jointly versioned with the schema, the PyPI wheel bundles data from the schema, and both are released from the same git repo. Even if these were separate source packages, they would need to be carefully maintained as one. Shipping them from a single source package is easier and less error-prone. This will be a neuro-sig package and is a dependency for the latest python-bids-validator, bug 2303188.
This is spurious: - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ The diagnostic appears because python3-pytest and python3-pytest7 both Provide python3dist(pytest), and this package depends on python3dist(pytest) – but not specifically on python3-pytest7 or on pytest<8, so there is no problem.
python3-bidsschematools.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/bidsschematools/data/0.10.0 ../../../../../share/bids-schema/versions/0.10.0 This is OK because the symlink target is provided by the base bids-schema package, and python3-bidsschematools does have a fully-versioned dependency on that. If we install both packages in the mock chroot, we can see that the symbolic link does not dangle.
Looks very good. A few things that need tweaking perhaps: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ^ This must be a false positive, the pacakge does not explicitly depend on pytest7 - Does the python3-bidsschematools sub-package need the MIT license tag added to it? - A couple of the directories are perhaps unowned (see below). - Upstream has made new releases :( ===== 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. [?]: 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* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 488 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2303543-bids-schema/licensecheck.txt ^ - Does the python3-bidsschematools sub-package need the MIT license tag added to it? [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/python3-bidsschematools, /usr/share/doc/bids-schema ^ I reckon we need to own the directories too? [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/doc/python3-bidsschematools, /usr/share/doc/bids-schema ^ See above [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51355 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-bidsschematools+render , python3-bidsschematools+expressions [x]: Package functions as described. ^ Tests all pass, imports all pass. [?]: Latest version is packaged. ^ Upstream seems to have made a number of new releases---3 in one week :) https://pypi.org/project/bidsschematools/#history [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bids-schema-0.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python3-bidsschematools-0.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python3-bidsschematools+render-0.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python3-bidsschematools+expressions-0.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm bids-schema-0.10.0-1.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/tmphutrzjfe')] checks: 32, packages: 5 python3-bidsschematools+expressions.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+expressions.noarch: E: spelling-error ('metapackage', '%description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+render.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+render.noarch: E: spelling-error ('metapackage', '%description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+expressions.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-bidsschematools+render.noarch: W: no-documentation bids-schema.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %doc bids-schema.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: bids-error-examples-ac0a2f58f34ce284847dde5bd3b90d7ea048c141-filtered.tar.zst bids-schema.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: bids-examples-ad9db4bbae20f76ff9512932940a719b865e3d50-filtered.tar.zst bids-schema.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension bids-error-examples-ac0a2f58f34ce284847dde5bd3b90d7ea048c141-filtered.tar.zst bids-schema.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension bids-examples-ad9db4bbae20f76ff9512932940a719b865e3d50-filtered.tar.zst python3-bidsschematools.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/bidsschematools/data/0.10.0 ../../../../../share/bids-schema/versions/0.10.0 ============================================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings, 50 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 4 python3-bidsschematools+render.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+render.noarch: E: spelling-error ('metapackage', '%description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+expressions.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+expressions.noarch: E: spelling-error ('metapackage', '%description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage') python3-bidsschematools+render.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-bidsschematools+expressions.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-bidsschematools.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/bidsschematools/data/0.10.0 ../../../../../share/bids-schema/versions/0.10.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 46 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/archive/schema-0.10.0/bids-specification-schema-0.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 94bc203917b29e0de41a9aab326336134f20d44861ea8a043d42334e059076fd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 94bc203917b29e0de41a9aab326336134f20d44861ea8a043d42334e059076fd Requires -------- bids-schema (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-bidsschematools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 bids-schema python(abi) python3.13dist(click) python3.13dist(jsonschema) python3.13dist(pyyaml) python3-bidsschematools+render (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-bidsschematools python3.13dist(markdown-it-py) python3.13dist(pandas) python3.13dist(tabulate) python3-bidsschematools+expressions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-bidsschematools python3.13dist(pyparsing) Provides -------- bids-schema: bids-schema python3-bidsschematools: python-bidsschematools python3-bidsschematools python3.13-bidsschematools python3.13dist(bidsschematools) python3dist(bidsschematools) python3-bidsschematools+render: python-bidsschematools+render python3-bidsschematools+render python3.13-bidsschematools+render python3.13dist(bidsschematools[render]) python3dist(bidsschematools[render]) python3-bidsschematools+expressions: python-bidsschematools+expressions python3-bidsschematools+expressions python3.13-bidsschematools+expressions python3.13dist(bidsschematools[expressions]) python3dist(bidsschematools[expressions]) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2303543 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, R, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #3) > Looks very good. A few things that need tweaking perhaps: Thanks for the review! > Issues: > ======= > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ > ^ > This must be a false positive, the pacakge does not explicitly depend on > pytest7 Agreed. > - Does the python3-bidsschematools sub-package need the MIT license tag > added to it? Definitely. Thanks for catching that. > - A couple of the directories are perhaps unowned (see below). Yes, I guess I need to explicitly own /usr/share/doc/python3-bidsschematools and /usr/share/doc/bids-schema. /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages and /usr/lib/python3.13 are clearly false positives. > - Upstream has made new releases :( Will update.
Source diff from 0.10.0 to 0.11.3: https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/compare/schema-0.10.0...schema-0.11.3 And for the examples: https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-examples/compare/ad9db4bbae20f76ff9512932940a719b865e3d50...7c18d6840982518a0251cfeb59fe5c4610099ea1
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240911/bids-schema.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240911/bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8010425 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2303543-bids-schema/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08010425-bids-schema/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 good XXX APPROVED XXX
Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/277776/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bids-schema
FEDORA-2024-d01e0e6459 (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d01e0e6459
FEDORA-2024-d01e0e6459 (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-d6d720c792 (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d6d720c792
FEDORA-2024-bfe18f6130 (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bfe18f6130
FEDORA-2024-e0851a691a (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e0851a691a
FEDORA-2024-d6d720c792 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-d6d720c792 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d6d720c792 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-bfe18f6130 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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-bfe18f6130 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bfe18f6130 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-e0851a691a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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-e0851a691a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e0851a691a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-d6d720c792 (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-e0851a691a (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-bfe18f6130 (bids-schema-0.11.3-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.