Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/ramalama-rpms/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/09214502-ramalama/ramalama.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/ramalama-rpms/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/09214502-ramalama/ramalama-0.9.3-2.fc43.src.rpm Description: RamaLama is a command line tool for working with AI LLM models Fedora Account System Username: smooge https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/ This is a re-review request for ramalama which is renaming python-ramalama to ramalama. ramalama is not a python library, but a utility. The python team has said this means the package does not need to be named with a python-
The provides and obsoletes need to reference the current binary package name python3-ramalama, not the source package name python-ramalama. Also the obsoletes shouldn't use the version and release macros, but rather use a release one higher than the last shipped release (which is currently 0.9.3-1). -Provides: python-ramalama = %{version}-%{release} -Obsoletes: python-ramalama < %{version}-%{release} +Provides: python3-ramalama = %{version}-%{release} +Obsoletes: python3-ramalama < 0.9.3-2 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages ================================================================================ The build requirements need some adjustments. It isn't necessary to manually specify python3 or pyproject-rpm-macros because these are pulled in by python3-devel. Dependencies covered by the generators should not be repeated. The python3_pkgversion macros are unnecessary and can be dropped for improved readability. The minimum version of Python is covered by the upstream metadata, and doesn't need to be repeated in the spec file. -BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros -BuildRequires: python3 >= 3.11 -BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-argcomplete -BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel -BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-pip -BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools -BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-wheel +BuildRequires: python3-devel https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies ================================================================================ The files header defaults to the top level package name, so there is no need to pass it as an option. -%files -n %{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files} +%files -f %{pyproject_files} ================================================================================ This package places files in /usr/libexec/ramalama, but doesn't own that directory. -%{_libexecdir}/ramalama/* +%{_libexecdir}/ramalama https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ ================================================================================ The fish and zsh completion paths must use the corresponding *_completions_dir macros instead of hardcoded paths. For zsh it will also need some adjustments to the source code, either by patch or sed, because currently it is installing it to a different directory than that macro references. -%{_datadir}/fish/vendor_completions.d/ramalama.fish -%{_datadir}/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama +%{fish_completions_dir}/ramalama.fish +%{zsh_completions_dir}/_ramalama https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ShellCompletions/ ================================================================================ The upstream unit tests should be run. It looks like they work in mock as long as podman is available. You can still run the import check if you want, but it's not necessary if the unit tests are being run as that will catch any import problems. +BuildRequires: podman %check -%pyproject_check_import +%pytest -v test/unit https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests ================================================================================ There are some rpmlint errors that should be easy enough to clear. ramalama.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/ramalama/chat.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 This can be avoided by removing that shebang line with patch or sed. ramalama.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary RamaLama -%global summary RamaLama is a command line tool for working with AI LLM models +%global summary Command line tool for working with AI LLM models ramalama.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions/_ramalama /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ramalama It seems these files are identical in the upstream source. Is it possible to have a completion file that works in both bash and zsh, or is this a bug?
> For zsh it will also need some adjustments to the source code, either by patch or sed, because currently it is installing it to a different directory than that macro references. Just sent this PR that can be included in the spec file as a patch. https://github.com/containers/ramalama/pull/1619
I have updated the srpm and spec file to match new upstream release 0.10.0 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9227733 https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/ramalama-rpms/epel-10-aarch64/09227733-ramalama/ramalama.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/ramalama-rpms/epel-10-aarch64/09227733-ramalama/ramalama-0.10.0-3.el10.src.rpm I noticed that in 0.10.0 with this spec I now install in %{python_sitelib} versus %{libexec} as I did in the previous release
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9228080 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2375027-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09228080-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.
The provides and obsoletes are still for python-ramalama, they need to be for python3-ramalama. ================================================================================ There is a provides for %{pypi_name}, but that matches %{name}, so it's effectively a duplicate and can be removed. -Provides: %{pypi_name} = %{version}-%{release} ================================================================================ The build requires on git-core and golang seem to be unnecessary, and the build works the same without them. ================================================================================ %{python3_sitelib}/ramalama doesn't need to be listed in the %files, because it's included as part of %{pyproject_files}. ================================================================================ The Name tag is set to the value of %{pypi_name}. It would be a bit more readable to define Name directly (`Name: ramalama`), drop the definition of %{pypi_name}, and just use %{name} everywhere else. This isn't mandatory for the review, just a suggestion. ================================================================================ While experimenting with this build, I noticed something I wanted to bring up. If you run `make docs` during the %build, the man pages are generated sooner, and then included in the wheel. The shell completions and the shortnames.conf file are also included in the wheel. The only thing not included is ramalama.conf. If pyproject.toml is modified to included ramalama.conf as a data file in the wheel similar to shortnames.conf, then we don't need to run any of the make targets in %install, just the docs target in %build. What do you think?
I was sure I made those changes.. but seem to have lost them. There is an outage with CentOS Stream packages so EL10 doesn't build but the following should have the updates: SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/ramalama-rpms/fedora-42-aarch64/09230162-ramalama/ramalama-0.10.0-4.fc42.src.rpm Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/smooge/ramalama-rpms/fedora-42-aarch64/09230162-ramalama/ramalama.spec
Created attachment 2095842 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9228080 to 9230183
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9230183 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2375027-ramalama/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09230183-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.
Carl, I have rerun and it builds for all distros and I think has all the must items done in it. The others need patches which I would prefer to work upstream first.
This looks good now. Just make sure to drop the macro definition for autorelease when importing, that's a compatibility thing injected by rpmautospec and shouldn't be committed to dist-git. Package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other 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. [x]: 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 44016 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 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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. ===== 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.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ramalama
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9c29f6adf8