Spec URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: pyregion is a python astronomy package to parse ds9 region files. It also supports ciao region files Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8706796 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348759-python-pyregion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08706796-python-pyregion/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-pyregion : /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/geom.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python3-pyregion : /usr/lib64/python3.13/site- packages/pyregion/geom.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759- python-pyregion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13, /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: 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 1087 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. [!]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.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/tmpbz7tyaj4')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pyregion.src: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/geom.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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 python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/geom.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/compiler_version.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyregion/pyregion-2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925 Requires -------- python3-pyregion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.13dist(astropy) python3.13dist(numpy) python3.13dist(pyparsing) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-pyregion: python-pyregion python3-pyregion python3-pyregion(x86-64) python3.13-pyregion python3.13dist(pyregion) python3dist(pyregion) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm/python-pyregion.spec 2025-03-09 14:21:15.044266340 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm-unpacked/python-pyregion.spec 2025-02-27 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global srcname pyregion %global upname pyregion @@ -52,3 +62,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Feb 27 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348759 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Does not build on i686 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130040445
Thank you! I'm skipping the i686 build and I'm also removing geom.h. AFAIK is not used anywhere in the code, it's not even valid C Updated Spec URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2079799 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8706796 to 8753254
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753254 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348759-python-pyregion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08753254-python-pyregion/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.
BuildRequires: tox this is redundant. # Add python 3.13 sed -i -e "s/310,311,312/310,311,312,313/" tox.ini Is this needed? If so, could you please add %{python3_version_nodots} so it does not break with Python 3.14?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759- python-pyregion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13, /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 1087 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.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/tmp_q__qn31')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pyregion.src: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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 python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/compiler_version.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyregion/pyregion-2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925 Requires -------- python3-pyregion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.13dist(astropy) python3.13dist(numpy) python3.13dist(pyparsing) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-pyregion: python-pyregion python3-pyregion python3-pyregion(x86-64) python3.13-pyregion python3.13dist(pyregion) python3dist(pyregion) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm/python-pyregion.spec 2025-03-22 08:12:00.534664209 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm-unpacked/python-pyregion.spec 2025-03-12 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global srcname pyregion %global upname pyregion @@ -58,3 +68,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Mar 12 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348759 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, R, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: 1) A build with the changes suggested by Miro works: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130604714 Please make them before import. 2) Warnings generated during build: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:218: _Warning: Package 'pyregion.tests' is absent from the `packa ges` configuration. !! ******************************************************************************** ############################ # Package would be ignored # ############################ Python recognizes 'pyregion.tests' as an importable package[^1], but it is absent from setuptools' `packages` configuration. This leads to an ambiguous overall configuration. If you want to distribute this package, please make sure that 'pyregion.tests' is explicitly added to the `packages` configuration field. Alternatively, you can also rely on setuptools' discovery methods (for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:` instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`). You can read more about "package discovery" on setuptools documentation page: - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/package_discovery.html If you don't want 'pyregion.tests' to be distributed and are already explicitly excluding 'pyregion.tests' via `find_namespace_packages(...)/find_namespace` or `find_packages(...)/find`, you can try to use `exclude_package_data`, or `include-package-data=False` in combination with a more fine grained `package-data` configuration. You can read more about "package data files" on setuptools documentation page: - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/datafiles.html [^1]: For Python, any directory (with suitable naming) can be imported, even if it does not contain any `.py` files. On the other hand, currently there is no concept of package data directory, all directories are treated like packages. ******************************************************************************** !! check.warn(importable) /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:218: _Warning: Package 'pyregion.tests.data' is absent from the ` packages` configuration. !! ******************************************************************************** ############################ # Package would be ignored # ############################ Python recognizes 'pyregion.tests.data' as an importable package[^1], but it is absent from setuptools' `packages` configuration. This leads to an ambiguous overall configuration. If you want to distribute this package, please make sure that 'pyregion.tests.data' is explicitly added to the `packages` configuration field. Alternatively, you can also rely on setuptools' discovery methods (for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:` instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`). You can read more about "package discovery" on setuptools documentation page: - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/package_discovery.html If you don't want 'pyregion.tests.data' to be distributed and are already explicitly excluding 'pyregion.tests.data' via `find_namespace_packages(...)/find_namespace` or `find_packages(...)/find`, you can try to use `exclude_package_data`, or `include-package-data=False` in combination with a more fine grained `package-data` configuration. You can read more about "package data files" on setuptools documentation page: - https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/datafiles.html [^1]: For Python, any directory (with suitable naming) can be imported, even if it does not contain any `.py` files. On the other hand, currently there is no concept of package data directory, all directories are treated like packages. ******************************************************************************** !! check.warn(importable) Is it helpful to package the tests and test data?
Updated: Spec URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm I have included Miro's suggestion. Regarding the tests, it seems that upstream wants them in the package, pyproject.toml contains an explicit "include-package-data = true". I have patched pyproject.toml, listing all the packages instead of relying in autodetection (that seems to exclude "test" directories among other things)
Created attachment 2081397 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753254 to 8804880
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8804880 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2348759-python-pyregion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08804880-python-pyregion/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 ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759- python-pyregion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.13 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 1087 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. [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. [x]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.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/tmptbsd0wjh')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pyregion.src: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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 python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ds9 region parser for Python python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5_degree.reg /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/tests/data/test01_fk5.reg python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_compiler.c python3-pyregion.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/_region_filter.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-pyregion: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/pyregion/compiler_version.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyregion/pyregion-2.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8498711421173239689de523bb465245f5551a18a181cb4956d87f9c7464925 Requires -------- python3-pyregion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.13dist(astropy) python3.13dist(numpy) python3.13dist(pyparsing) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-pyregion: python-pyregion python3-pyregion python3-pyregion(x86-64) python3.13-pyregion python3.13dist(pyregion) python3dist(pyregion) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm/python-pyregion.spec 2025-04-07 18:09:11.321253005 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pyregion/2348759-python-pyregion/srpm-unpacked/python-pyregion.spec 2025-03-22 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global srcname pyregion %global upname pyregion @@ -59,3 +69,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Mar 22 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348759 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can the documentation be built? b) Consider using rpmbuild -bs to generate the srpm so that %autochangelog is correctly handled. c) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131281035 d) Approved. Consider implementing (a) and (b) before import.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyregion
FEDORA-2025-ef3c45e5df (python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ef3c45e5df
FEDORA-2025-ef3c45e5df (python-pyregion-2.3.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.