Spec URL: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot.spec SRPM URL: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot-10.3.2-7.fc42.src.rpm Description: Pywikibot is a Python library and collection of tools that automate work on MediaWiki sites. Originally designed for Wikipedia, it is now used throughout the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects and on many other MediaWiki wikis. Fedora Account System Username: dreua
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9496802 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391273-python-pywikibot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09496802-python-pywikibot/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 copr build on f41 fails, because mwparserfromhell is not in the f41 repo (I just added that recently). I don't think it is necessary to add those packages to F41 but if you like to see them there let me know :)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 and/or MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License and/or MIT License". 193 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/trosten/fedora/review/2391273-python- pywikibot/licensecheck.txt Please check: https://github.com/wikimedia/pywikibot/blob/master/docs/licenses.rst and reflect license status somewhat better. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest seems to be 10.5.0: https://github.com/wikimedia/pywikibot/blob/master/HISTORY.rst [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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. Can be ignored due to %auto* macros. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pywikibot-10.3.2-7.fc44.noarch.rpm python-pywikibot-10.3.2-7.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/tmp1a8lbiw1')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-pywikibot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwb 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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 python3-pywikibot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwb 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wikimedia/pywikibot/archive/10.3.2/pywikibot-10.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c24d5a98f47b1c6e317a87e0440932a37dc7c6cb0900743e5430a56438900367 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c24d5a98f47b1c6e317a87e0440932a37dc7c6cb0900743e5430a56438900367 Requires -------- python3-pywikibot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(mwparserfromhell) python3.14dist(packaging) python3.14dist(requests) Provides -------- python3-pywikibot: python-pywikibot python3-pywikibot python3.14-pywikibot python3.14dist(pywikibot) python3dist(pywikibot) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /export/home/trosten/fedora/review/2391273-python-pywikibot/srpm/python-pywikibot.spec 2025-10-13 09:02:11.428967097 +0200 +++ /export/home/trosten/fedora/review/2391273-python-pywikibot/srpm-unpacked/python-pywikibot.spec 2025-08-27 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ Changes to %autorelease and %autochangelog skipped Please try to improvement license information.
Hello, thank you for the review and sorry for the late reply, I was a little busy in the meantime. I asked upstream to included the licenses: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T408794 The packaged version was current when I opened the review request; it is now updated to the latest version. (No changes relevant for packaging.) License information added in metadata and also the existing two files as %license in the files section. That should have been everything, I hope it is all good now :) Spec URL: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot.spec SRPM URL: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot-10.6.0-2.fc43.src.rpm Rawhide: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot-10.6.0-2.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2111515 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9496802 to 9750403
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9750403 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391273-python-pywikibot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09750403-python-pywikibot/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.
Update to 10.7.0: Spec URL: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot.spec SRPM URL: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot-10.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Rawhide: https://dreua.fedorapeople.org/python-pywikibot/python-pywikibot-10.7.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
As -l option is used here: > %pyproject_save_files %{modname} -l you can drop: > %license docs/licenses.rst > %license LICENSE There seems to be an issue with idlelib dep, it's present in pywikibot/userinterfaces/gui.py however not part of buildreq. nor reqs.: $ rpm -qp --requires /export/RPMS/noarch/python3-pywikibot-10.7.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.14 python3.14dist(mwparserfromhell) >= 0.5.2 python3.14dist(packaging) python3.14dist(requests) >= 2.31 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 Somewhat related is the brief test report (as seen from: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391273-python-pywikibot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09750403-python-pywikibot/builder-live.log.gz ): /usr/bin/python3 -m tox --current-env --assert-config -q --recreate -e py314 Python 3.14.0 py314: OK (0.01 seconds) congratulations :) (0.07 seconds) Please check status of test run and see if this can be extended.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll drop the extra %license part and and a Requires: python3-idle For the tests I'm honestly not feeling like putting more work in that, the "MUST" items are checked and for a package that is probably only going to be used by me that should be enough. (I promise to respond in a timely manner and improve testing if it turns out to be used by others!)
Ok, just leave a comment in %check, full run of test suite is not done at the moment?
Sure, good idea!
Should be easy to resolve remaining issues?
ping?
So sorry for the long silence, it kind of got lost in other priorities tbh. I also asked upstream about the licenses and there is a PR open which I need to review and compare to the licenses I put in the spec here. I'll try to finish this up soon, thanks for the reminder!