Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rignore.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rignore-0.6.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: rignore is a Python module that provides a high-performance, Rust-powered file system traversal functionality. It wraps the Rust ignore crate using PyO3, offering an efficient way to walk through directories while respecting various ignore rules. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a compiled Python extension written in Rust. As such packages go, it is pretty minimal and straightforward. The spec file is written using the provisional pyproject declarative buildsystem; see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/README.md. This will be a dependency for a new fastapi-cloud-cli package, which is a dependency for the "standard" extra of fastapi-cli since 0.0.8 and python-fastapi since 0.116.1.
Upstream has merged my PR for PyO3 0.25.1 and released version 0.6.2. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250713/python-rignore.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250713/python-rignore-0.6.2-1.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9369250 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2379740-python-rignore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09369250-python-rignore/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.
Created attachment 2102627 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9369250 to 9369255
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9369255 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2379740-python-rignore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09369255-python-rignore/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.
When I run fedora-review, the build fails in %generate_buildrequires, apparently unable to find rust-ignore: + /usr/bin/python3 -Bs /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_buildrequires.py --generate-extras --python3_pkgversion 3 --wheeldir /builddir/build/BUILD/python-rignore-0.6.2-build/python-rignore-0.6.2/pyproject-wheeldir --output /builddir/build/BUILD/python-rignore-0.6.2-build/python-rignore-0.6.2-1.fc44.x86_64-pyproject-buildrequires Handling maturin>=1.8.3,<2.0 from build-system.requires Requirement satisfied: maturin>=1.8.3,<2.0 (installed: maturin 1.8.7) error: no matching package named `ignore` found location searched: directory source `/usr/share/cargo/registry` (which is replacing registry `crates-io`) required by package `rignore v0.6.2 (/builddir/build/BUILD/python-rignore-0.6.2-build/python-rignore-0.6.2)` As a reminder, you're using offline mode (--offline) which can sometimes cause surprising resolution failures, if this error is too confusing you may wish to retry without `--offline`. 💥 maturin failed Caused by: Cargo metadata failed. Does your crate compile with `cargo build`? Caused by: `cargo metadata` exited with an error: Error running maturin: Command '['maturin', 'pep517', 'write-dist-info', '--metadata-directory', '.', '--interpreter', '/usr/bin/python3']' returned non-zero exit status 1. Checking for Rust toolchain.... Running `maturin pep517 write-dist-info --metadata-directory . --interpreter /usr/bin/python3` error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.DeSCFz (%generate_buildrequires) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.DeSCFz (%generate_buildrequires)
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #5) > When I run fedora-review, the build fails in %generate_buildrequires, > apparently unable to find rust-ignore: This is really surprising. I just ran $ fedora-review -b 2379740 and it worked fine. I wonder what is different when you run fedora-review.
The failure you were seeing is also odd because the fedora-review service appears to have built the submission successfully in COPR, too. I’ve updated the submission to 0.6.4, which has some CI changes but no source-code changes. I don’t expect this to affect the problem you were seeing. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250830/python-rignore.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250830/python-rignore-0.6.4-1.fc42.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2105421 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9369255 to 9509756
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9509756 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2379740-python-rignore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09509756-python-rignore/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9509772 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2379740-python-rignore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09509772-python-rignore/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.
Today fedora-review ran without complaint. Gremlins? I will take this review.
Looks great. This package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2379740-python-rignore/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [x]: 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: 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 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 3303 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-rignore-0.6.4-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm python-rignore-0.6.4-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_c58he03')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-rignore: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/rignore/rignore.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/patrick91/rignore/archive/v0.6.4/rignore-0.6.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfa15225db6e74d9f3e9627815b89d137f5b44d743b43ec550d1b0a34138f911 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfa15225db6e74d9f3e9627815b89d137f5b44d743b43ec550d1b0a34138f911 Requires -------- python3-rignore (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-rignore: python-rignore python3-rignore python3-rignore(x86-64) python3.14-rignore python3.14dist(rignore) python3dist(rignore) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2379740 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, R, Ocaml, C/C++, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/383499/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rignore
FEDORA-2025-18429fff7f (python-rignore-0.6.4-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-18429fff7f
FEDORA-2025-18429fff7f (python-rignore-0.6.4-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b (fastapi-cli-0.0.10-1.fc43, python-fastapi-0.116.1-9.fc43, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b
FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-b4d73ac41b (fastapi-cli-0.0.13-1.fc43, fastapi-cloud-cli-0.2.0-3.fc43, and 5 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.