Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.14-1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a.fc40.src.rpm Description: RamaLama does a host inspection for what kind of GPU are available and will download appropriate containers or tools to make an AI dataset work best. Fedora Account System Username: smooge
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8122948 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08122948-python-ramalama/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.
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. [!]: 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* Apache License 2.0". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/python-ramalama/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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 9964 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. [x]: 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: [-]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _python_dist_allow_version_zero 1 [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ramalama-0.0.14-1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a.fc42.noarch.rpm python-ramalama-0.0.14-1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a.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/tmph6s0nnuo')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-ramalama.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ramalama-0.0.14.tar.gz ========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Requires -------- python3-ramalama (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(argcomplete) Provides -------- python3-ramalama: python-ramalama python3-ramalama python3.13-ramalama python3.13dist(ramalama) python3dist(ramalama) ramalama Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n python-ramalama-0.0.14-1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
[!]: 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* Apache License 2.0". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/python-ramalama/licensecheck.txt License is MIT [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Please re-read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ I'm noticing things like the use of %{python3_pkgversion} when it should be %{python3_version} or %{python3_version_nodots}. I also wonder why you didn't use %pyproject_buildrequires techniques. We should use those if it's possible. [!]: Latest version is packaged. New version available. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Update the source to be a link to an upstream release tar. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. No tests are being ran. We should add these. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _python_dist_allow_version_zero 1
General SPEC formatting, please align all key/values: Version: 0.0.14 License: Apache-2.0 Release: 1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a%{?dist} Summary: RESTful API for RamaLama URL: https://github.com/containers/%{pypi_name} # Tarball fetched from upstream Source0: ramalama-0.0.14.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch vs Version: 0.0.14 License: Apache-2.0 Release: 1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a%{?dist} Summary: RESTful API for RamaLama URL: https://github.com/containers/%{pypi_name} # Tarball fetched from upstream Source0: ramalama-0.0.14.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch
Even I missed one because my eyes didn't catch it due to the source comment. Version: 0.0.14 License: Apache-2.0 Release: 1.20241009144300711769.main.0.ga86594a%{?dist} Summary: RESTful API for RamaLama URL: https://github.com/containers/%{pypi_name} # Tarball fetched from upstream Source0: ramalama-0.0.14.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch
Thanks for the reviews. I am taking the above comments and will feed them back into the project. I will also have an updated package to you ASAP.
(In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #3) > [!]: 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* Apache > License 2.0". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/python-ramalama/licensecheck.txt > > License is MIT > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > Please re-read > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > > I'm noticing things like the use of %{python3_pkgversion} when it should be > %{python3_version} or %{python3_version_nodots}. > > I also wonder why you didn't use %pyproject_buildrequires techniques. We > should use those if it's possible. > > I think the idea was how to deal with EPEL versions but it could be following older guidelines. I will update the upstream spec and fix here. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > > New version available. > > > [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > > Update the source to be a link to an upstream release tar. > This was built via packit the first time and I missed that it didn't do this. I will see if this can be 'fixed' and if not will fix the one in review. > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > No tests are being ran. We should add these. > I will feed this upstream.. checks may not be possible without internet access but this can be worked on. > > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define > _python_dist_allow_version_zero 1 Will review the python packaging guidelines and properly fix.
To answer one item: ``` [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Please re-read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ I'm noticing things like the use of %{python3_pkgversion} when it should be %{python3_version} or %{python3_version_nodots}. I also wonder why you didn't use %pyproject_buildrequires techniques. We should use those if it's possible. ``` I tried using %{python3_version} in replacement of %{python3_pkgversion} and it did not work in `mock` but it would work in `rpmbuild`. I then downloaded all the Fedora spec files to see what was being used in rawhide, and found that packages like python3-wheel and others still used the _pkgversion syntax. I was also having problems trying to use %pyproject_buildrequires and they were causing different errors depending if I was using epel-9 or fedora-rawhide. I will need to work with the upstream to get the requirements and other tooling to work correctly.
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.17-4.fc40.src.rpm Description: RamaLama does a host inspection for what kind of GPU are available and will download appropriate containers or tools to make an AI dataset work best. Fedora Account System Username: smooge
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.18-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2052285 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8122948 to 8147699
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8147699 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08147699-python-ramalama/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.
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.19-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2052348 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8147699 to 8148656
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8148656 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08148656-python-ramalama/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.
I made a rough package, for copr starting some weeks ago: see https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/petersen/ramalama/python-ramalama.git/tree/python-ramalama.spec (updated to 0.0.19 now) it uses the forge macros, which you could also consider. Though with the upstream tagged releases now that is optional I would say. Might still be worth looking over or rather comparing the spec files anyway. I don't like the unnamed github tarball: Source0: %{source_url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz If you don't want to use the forge macros: Source0: %{forgesource} then better to use the de facto standard url suffix, like this: Source0: %{source_url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz to get a named tarball (why github didn't do this by default is beyond me but anyway I guess that ship is long sailed). I believe `%global debug_package %{nil}` is also redundant and hence can be dropped? Is the intention to maintain this package as dist-source? (Otherwise the comment about the upstream spec file should be removed.) It could be nice to have the review changelog entries in the spec file. I couldn't get the bash completions to do anything yet.
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. [!]: 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* Apache License 2.0". 70 files have unknown license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 9964 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ramalama-0.0.19-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-ramalama-0.0.19-1.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/tmpr72zvdin')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 python3-ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/containers/ramalama/archive/refs/tags/v0.0.19.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de9ba449a8d4791ccc086067649a0f2d76de5796a8de3e5effa0bf527e2b29e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de9ba449a8d4791ccc086067649a0f2d76de5796a8de3e5effa0bf527e2b29e7 Requires -------- python3-ramalama (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-argcomplete python3.13dist(argcomplete) python3.13dist(huggingface-hub) python3.13dist(tqdm) Provides -------- python3-ramalama: python-ramalama python3-ramalama python3.13-ramalama python3.13dist(ramalama) python3dist(ramalama) ramalama Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n python-ramalama-0.0.19-1.fc42.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, PHP, R, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
[!]: 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* Apache License 2.0". 70 files have unknown license. This looks good. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Use either %autochangelog or manual entries for new packages. The only time I've seen both is when a package is already in distgit and is migrated to %autochangelog. This being a new package, just include %autochangelog [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. F39 is failing to build. Since this is a non-critical component, maybe guard the inclusion of the zsh completions. register-python-argcomplete --shell zsh ramalama > completions/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama usage: register-python-argcomplete [-h] [--no-defaults] [--complete-arguments ...] [-s {bash,tcsh,fish}] [-e EXTERNAL_ARGCOMPLETE_SCRIPT] executable [executable ...] register-python-argcomplete: error: argument -s/--shell: invalid choice: 'zsh' (choose from 'bash', 'tcsh', 'fish') [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. No check. If upstream doesn't have tests this is fine.
Ok thanks for those updates.. was out sick over weekend. Will fix and resubmit.
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.19-2.fc42.src.rpm Fixed items Jens pointed out and fixed items pointed out in last step of review. Thank you
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.19-2.fc42.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.19-3.fc42.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.19-3.fc40.src.rpm
F39 seems to still be failing: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125102070 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-ramalama-0.0.19-3.fc39.noarch RPM build errors: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama /usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d/ramalama.fish /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama /usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d/ramalama.fish /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama
Spec URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/packages/ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.20-8.fc40.src.rpm Should fix f39. This will only be branched for rawhide and f41. EPEL9 and EPEL10 will take some other heavy lifting
Created attachment 2053311 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8148656 to 8169843
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8169843 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08169843-python-ramalama/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.
Is there a reason you are not using %autorelease? # temporary patch until upstream fixes make Patch1: 0001-ramalama-v0.0.20_fixf39.patch This patch should reference an upstream issue or pull request. Is there a reason you are not using https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_buildrequires and rather specifying deps manually? This is only a SHOULD so manually specifying wont block the review. According to the docs you should be using it if you use %pyproject_wheel: %pyproject_wheel Build the package. Commonly, this is the only macro needed in the %build section. This macro needs BuildRequires generated by %pyproject_buildrequires.
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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 83 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/python-ramalama/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, /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions [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 10788 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: %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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ramalama-0.0.20-8.fc42.noarch.rpm python-ramalama-0.0.20-8.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/tmp30h1mqh4')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-ramalama.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: 0001-ramalama-v0.0.20_fixf39.patch python3-ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 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 python3-ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/containers/ramalama/archive/v0.0.20/ramalama-0.0.20.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 671e721ecc3aedee9cf6494bb335101842bf7f556418a538579478ed4e43cf90 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 671e721ecc3aedee9cf6494bb335101842bf7f556418a538579478ed4e43cf90 Requires -------- python3-ramalama (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 podman python(abi) python3-huggingface-hub python3-tqdm python3.13dist(argcomplete) python3.13dist(huggingface-hub) python3.13dist(tqdm) Provides -------- python3-ramalama: python-ramalama python3-ramalama python3.13-ramalama python3.13dist(ramalama) python3dist(ramalama) ramalama Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n python-ramalama-0.0.20-8.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Haskell, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python See comment about usage of %pypackage_wheel but not %pyproject_buildrequires [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Patch0 needs to be addressed.
It's looking pretty good. I think source_url is redundant and should be removed. Also is it really necessary explicitly to disable debug_package in the first line? I think no debuginfo package is generated for noarch anyway. (Also there is no review requirement for the package so build for all current releases, so the f39 patch could just be excluded from the review, but sure it is good to provide an upstream reference if you want to have the patch. :)
To answer questions above: 1. ``` Is there a reason you are not using %autorelease? ``` The reason for not using %autorelease was to get it through the review process. I had problems in the past where having 'updates' to fix the last change would not work because the tool saw it as the same version as the last and new builds weren't getting kicked off for fedora-review and such. I will changed it back to %{autorelease} with the hope that works 2. ``` # temporary patch until upstream fixes make Patch1: 0001-ramalama-v0.0.20_fixf39.patch This patch should reference an upstream issue or pull request. ``` I was following: ``` Fedora-specific (or rejected upstream) patches It may be that some patches truly are Fedora-specific; in that case, say so: # This patch is temporary until we land the long term System.loadLibrary fix in OpenJDK Patch: jna-jni-path.patch ``` I am making a PR and will reference that in the next round. 3. ``` Is there a reason you are not using https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_buildrequires and rather specifying deps manually? This is only a SHOULD so manually specifying wont block the review. According to the docs you should be using it if you use %pyproject_wheel: ``` I tried using it and found it was pulling in requirements which are at best 'recommendations' versus 'requires'. This was causing problems with it even building because some of them are not packaged in Fedora yet and I didn't want to vendor them in. I am open to suggestions on how to fix that.
(In reply to Stephen John Smoogen from comment #32) > 3. > ``` > Is there a reason you are not using > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #pyproject_buildrequires and rather specifying deps manually? This is only a > SHOULD so manually specifying wont block the review. > > According to the docs you should be using it if you use %pyproject_wheel: > ``` > > I tried using it and found it was pulling in requirements which are at best > 'recommendations' versus 'requires'. This was causing problems with it even > building because some of them are not packaged in Fedora yet and I didn't > want to vendor them in. I am open to suggestions on how to fix that. I think we are going to need to package whatever %pyproject_buildrequires detects before it's smart to approve this. We really shouldn't be shipping software that will be broken depending on how users configure/use the package. If it's truly modular, we need to make sure to patch out/remove the functionality that is missing dependencies.
Added in other reviews needed to get this into Fedora 40, 41, 42. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323710 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323711 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323712
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08214679-python-ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08214679-python-ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.21-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2055807 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8169843 to 8214827
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8214827 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08214827-python-ramalama/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08226551-python-ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08226551-python-ramalama/python-ramalama-0.0.22-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2056283 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8214827 to 8226628
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8226628 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08226628-python-ramalama/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08253375-python-ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08253375-python-ramalama/python-ramalama-0.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2057492 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8226628 to 8253589
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8253589 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08253589-python-ramalama/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.
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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 95 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/python-ramalama/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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/zsh/vendor-completions [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 10864 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ramalama-0.1.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-ramalama-0.1.1-1.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/tmptqo2vkq0')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-ramalama.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot RamaLama is a command line tool for working with AI LLM models. python3-ramalama.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot RamaLama is a command line tool for working with AI LLM models. python3-ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 python3-ramalama.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot RamaLama is a command line tool for working with AI LLM models. python3-ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/containers/ramalama/archive/v0.1.1/ramalama-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4d64fdd2e20a1c71b2f96fc2bd0806011505397980da6012d96ec72db53317df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4d64fdd2e20a1c71b2f96fc2bd0806011505397980da6012d96ec72db53317df Requires -------- python3-ramalama (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 podman python(abi) python3-tqdm python3.13dist(argcomplete) python3.13dist(tqdm) Provides -------- python3-ramalama: python-ramalama python3-ramalama python3.13-ramalama python3.13dist(ramalama) python3dist(ramalama) ramalama Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n python-ramalama-0.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Couple things, then we'll be ready. 1) Align all of your metadata. The key/values for stuff like Name, and BuildRequires, etc. should all me value aligned: %global pypi_name ramalama %global forgeurl https://github.com/containers/%{pypi_name} %global version0 0.1.1 %forgemeta [...] Name: python-%{pypi_name} Version: %{version0} License: MIT Release: %autorelease Summary: %{desc} URL: %{forgeurl} Source0: %{forgesource} BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: git-core [...] 2) Fix python3-ramalama.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot RamaLama is a command line tool for working with AI LLM models.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08255308-python-ramalama/python-ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/AI_tools/fedora-40-aarch64/08255308-python-ramalama/python-ramalama-0.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2057584 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8253589 to 8255347
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8255347 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317585-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08255347-python-ramalama/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.
APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ramalama
Thank you. It is built https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125850236