Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08671884-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08671884-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models-1.4.0-0.fc43.src.rpm Description: SQLAlchemy models for datanommer Fedora Account System Username: zlopez I would like to unretire datanommer-commands and as it's retired for more than 8 weeks I'm opening this review request with it.
Same as in bz2346613. Why use %pyproject_buildrequires -t?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Same as in bz2346613. Why use %pyproject_buildrequires -t? Probably copied from another spec file for different python package. But here is the spec file that is fixing that: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675844-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models.spec
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675844-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675844-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models-1.4.0-0.fc43.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
Could we get this over the finish line?
Will do today, sorry for the delay.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datanommer-models See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/datanomer-models/2346614-python-datanommer- models/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 [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 38209 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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: [-]: 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. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-datanommer-models-1.4.0-0.fc43.noarch.rpm python-datanommer-models-1.4.0-0.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpu_d2xdnr')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/datanommer_models/datanommer_models-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00eac78cb9aaa8768143e977901a237e50ddb8e552cfa4278f3b2b454ce881de CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00eac78cb9aaa8768143e977901a237e50ddb8e552cfa4278f3b2b454ce881de Requires -------- python3-datanommer-models (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(alembic) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(alembic) >= 1.6.5) (python3.13dist(psycopg2) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(psycopg2) >= 2.9.1) (python3.13dist(sqlalchemy) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(sqlalchemy) >= 1.3.24) python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging) Provides -------- python3-datanommer-models: python-datanommer-models python3-datanommer-models python3.13-datanommer-models python3.13dist(datanommer-models) python3dist(datanommer-models) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2346614 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, PHP, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) For homepage please use: https://github.com/fedora-infra/datanommer b) Please change %doc LICENSE to %license LICENSE Note that the license file does not have metadata: rpm -qL python3-datanommer-models-1.4.0-0.fc43.noarch.rpm c) As the package was in Fedora before: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datanommer-models please indicate it is an unretirement request and send an email to the devel list d) Please change Release: 0%{?dist} to use %autorelease macro e) Please change %pyproject_save_files datanommer to %pyproject_save_files datanommer -L See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros f) Check Python SQLAlchemy dependency. It appears that 2.0 can be used: https://github.com/fedora-infra/datanommer/blob/cde3e83caf07614849ea2a59f4f3b21af7ce8ef1/datanommer.models/pyproject.toml#L28
E-mail to devel list sent and here is the new spec file and srpm. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08788597-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08788597-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models-1.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8791804 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346614-python-datanommer-models/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08791804-python-datanommer-models/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datanommer-models Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
I added Requires python3-sqlalchemy >= 2.0.0, so I'm not sure why it still says that it's depends on python3-sqlalchemy1.3
Likely https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/525 No need to add Requires python3-sqlalchemy >= 2.0.0, please don't.
Also note that the added line: Requires: python3-sqlalchemy >= 2.0.0 Has no effect because it would need to be below the %package -n python3-datanommer-models line.
So how should I solve the python3-sqlalchemy1.3 dependency issue? Any ideas?
You don't. There is no issue.
So I removed the Requires and hopefully everything should be fine now. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08812231-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08812231-python-datanommer-models/python-datanommer-models-1.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2081636 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8791804 to 8812248
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8812248 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346614-python-datanommer-models/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08812248-python-datanommer-models/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datanommer-models Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datanommer-models See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/datanomer-models/2346614-python- datanommer-models/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 3062 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-datanommer-models-1.4.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-datanommer-models-1.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpeq2xum3h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/datanommer_models/datanommer_models-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00eac78cb9aaa8768143e977901a237e50ddb8e552cfa4278f3b2b454ce881de CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00eac78cb9aaa8768143e977901a237e50ddb8e552cfa4278f3b2b454ce881de Requires -------- python3-datanommer-models (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(alembic) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(alembic) >= 1.6.5) (python3.13dist(psycopg2) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(psycopg2) >= 2.9.1) (python3.13dist(sqlalchemy) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(sqlalchemy) >= 1.3.24) python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging) Provides -------- python3-datanommer-models: python-datanommer-models python3-datanommer-models python3.13-datanommer-models python3.13dist(datanommer-models) python3dist(datanommer-models) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2346614 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, R, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Best way to avoid SQLAlchemy version warning is to modify pyproject.toml is to either change %autosetup -p1 -n datanommer_models-%{version} to %autosetup -p1 -n datanommer_models-%{version} sed -i 's/SQLAlchemy = "^1.3.24 || ^2.0.0"/SQLAlchemy = "^2.0.0"/g' pyproject.toml or apply a patch with the above effect. b) With above change can approve.
No change for SQLAlchemy version warning is necessary. The warning is a bug in Fedora Review fixed in https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/525
I wasn't aware of the bug.
How can one ensure that SQLAlchemy 2.0.0 is pulled in when installing? Requires -------- python3-datanommer-models (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(alembic) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(alembic) >= 1.6.5) (python3.13dist(psycopg2) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(psycopg2) >= 2.9.1) (python3.13dist(sqlalchemy) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(sqlalchemy) >= 1.3.24)
> How can one ensure that SQLAlchemy 2.0.0 is pulled in when installing? Why would you *want* to do that? The newer one is installed by default. The older one is installed in an environment where something else needs it.
So is there anything else I need to address?
Could I get this approved?
Approved.
Thanks