Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08191020-qtile-extras/qtile-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08191020-qtile-extras/qtile-extras-0.29.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: A collection of third-party widgets, toolkits, wallpapers, and other extras for Qtile. Fedora Account System Username: frostyx
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8191059 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08191059-qtile-extras/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.
The reason of the build failure is No match for argument: qtile = 0.29.0 I am maintaining the qtile package, and I am building this version right now.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8192679 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08192679-qtile-extras/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8198815 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08198815-qtile-extras/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08198954-qtile-extras/qtile-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08198954-qtile-extras/qtile-extras-0.29.0-2.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2054821 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8198815 to 8199004
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8199004 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08199004-qtile-extras/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". 212 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qtile-extras/2322762-qtile- extras/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). [!]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 824 bytes in 1 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: [-]: 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. [!]: %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: qtile-extras-0.29.0-2.fc42.noarch.rpm qtile-extras-0.29.0-2.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/tmprcve1jk1')] checks: 32, packages: 2 qtile-extras.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/footballscores/fixtures.py qtile-extras.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/visualiser/cava_draw.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP ====== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 4.9 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 qtile-extras.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/footballscores/fixtures.py qtile-extras.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/visualiser/cava_draw.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elParaguayo/qtile-extras/archive/v0.29.0/qtile-extras-0.29.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7af52c594d3d4f4d7530ea58e5c8c4fcb47eeef59c0b097c5a9be54decdef43e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7af52c594d3d4f4d7530ea58e5c8c4fcb47eeef59c0b097c5a9be54decdef43e Requires -------- qtile-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) qtile Provides -------- qtile-extras: python3.13dist(qtile-extras) python3dist(qtile-extras) qtile-extras Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2322762 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125427150 b) The package name should probably be python-qtile-extras c) Can documentation be built? Not a must, but nice to have. Sphinx can generate man pages. d) Can tests be run? If not, please change: %check to %check %pyproject_check_import
e) Is it possible to fix: qtile-extras.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/footballscores/fixtures.py qtile-extras.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/visualiser/cava_draw.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP
> e) Is it possible to fix: > qtile-extras.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/footballscores/fixtures.py > qtile-extras.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/qtile_extras/resources/visualiser/cava_draw.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP Good catch, I fixed those. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201248-qtile-extras/qtile-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201248-qtile-extras/qtile-extras-0.29.0-3.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2054876 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8199004 to 8201255
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8201255 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201255-qtile-extras/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://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201276-qtile-extras/qtile-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201276-qtile-extras/qtile-extras-0.29.0-3.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8201279 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201279-qtile-extras/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://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201376-qtile-extras/qtile-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201376-qtile-extras/qtile-extras-0.29.0-3.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2054899 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8201279 to 8201378
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8201378 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08201378-qtile-extras/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.
Thanks. Any way to run a smoke test? See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests Can fonts that are installed be replaced by softlinks to the roboto font package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-roboto-fonts) : python3-qt-material-2.14-1.fc42.noarch.rpm/ └── usr ├── lib │ └── python3.13 │ └── site-packages │ ├── qt_material │ │ ├── dock_theme.ui │ │ ├── fonts │ │ │ └── roboto │ │ │ ├── Roboto-BlackItalic.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-Black.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-BoldItalic.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-Bold.ttf │ │ │ ├── RobotoCondensed-BoldItalic.ttf │ │ │ ├── RobotoCondensed-Bold.ttf │ │ │ ├── RobotoCondensed-Italic.ttf │ │ │ ├── RobotoCondensed-LightItalic.ttf │ │ │ ├── RobotoCondensed-Light.ttf │ │ │ ├── RobotoCondensed-Regular.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-Italic.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-LightItalic.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-Light.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-MediumItalic.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-Medium.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-Regular.ttf │ │ │ ├── Roboto-ThinItalic.ttf │ │ │ └── Roboto-Thin.ttf
> Thanks. Any way to run a smoke test? I finally figured how to run the tests. There were some issues, so I filed some upstream PRs and issues. > Can fonts that are installed be replaced by softlinks to the roboto font > package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-roboto-fonts) : I am not sure what do you mean here. I tried to add a dependency like this `Requires: font(roboto)`, which works. But I don't think we need it because this package doesn't bundle any fonts. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08206060-qtile-extras/qtile-extras.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/qtile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08206060-qtile-extras/qtile-extras-0.29.0-4.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2055402 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8201378 to 8206148
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8206148 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322762-qtile-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08206148-qtile-extras/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.
> - python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ This is IMHO a false-positive. The python3-pytest7 package wasn't installed in the buildroot, only this was: python3-pytest noarch 8.3.3-3.fc42 fedora 20.8 MiB
Thanks. a) Sorry, fonts are for another package. Please remove: Requires: font(roboto) b) One nit, please remove: BuildRequires: python3-pytest-cov See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters c) You could also modify https://github.com/elParaguayo/qtile-extras/blob/main/tox.ini so that only dependencies you need are included. d) Approved
> a) Sorry, fonts are for another package. > Please remove: > Requires: font(roboto) Sure, np :-) > b) One nit, please remove: > BuildRequires: python3-pytest-cov Right, done. > c) You could also modify > https://github.com/elParaguayo/qtile-extras/blob/main/tox.ini > so that only dependencies you need are included. This is a really good idea. I added a note about it to the specfile. Once I have to tweak the dependencies for a new upstream version or something, I will drop all the explicit deps and use this approach. > d) Approved Thank you very much for the review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qtile-extras
FEDORA-2024-81aeeec399 (qtile-extras-0.29.0-5.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-81aeeec399
FEDORA-2024-b0c4cf8ff1 (qtile-extras-0.29.0-5.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b0c4cf8ff1
FEDORA-2024-b0c4cf8ff1 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-b0c4cf8ff1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b0c4cf8ff1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-81aeeec399 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-2024-81aeeec399 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-81aeeec399 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-b0c4cf8ff1 (qtile-extras-0.29.0-5.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-81aeeec399 (qtile-extras-0.29.0-5.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.