Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-annotated-doc.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-annotated-doc-0.0.3-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Document parameters, class attributes, return types, and variables inline, with Annotated. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a new dependency (not a documentation dependency, but a hard runtime dependency) for FastAPI 0.120.0. It is a very simple package.
Until the latest python-uv-build package reaches a Rawhide compose, it will be necessary to review this with "fedora-review -b 2406317 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local".
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9732483 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406317-python-annotated-doc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09732483-python-annotated-doc/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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 contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 0 bytes in 0 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: [x]: 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. [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. [!]: %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-annotated-doc-0.0.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-annotated-doc-0.0.3-1.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/tmp3ndxuvqv')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 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, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fastapi/annotated-doc/archive/0.0.3/annotated-doc-0.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 854f845e4ebfd2de8c3b6f681dc706b740b4c739380b09de3920148617ccaa82 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 854f845e4ebfd2de8c3b6f681dc706b740b4c739380b09de3920148617ccaa82 Requires -------- python3-annotated-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-annotated-doc: python-annotated-doc python3-annotated-doc python3.14-annotated-doc python3.14dist(annotated-doc) python3dist(annotated-doc) Issues: Summary: - issue: spec don't include python3-devel, that's due to need style BuildSystem: pyproject ? - missing %check, even here is some logic regarding pytest present, will the new BuildSystem stuff run tests without any code in %check?
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #3) > Summary: > > - issue: spec don't include python3-devel, that's due to need style > BuildSystem: pyproject ? Correct, "BuildSystem: pyproject" implies a dependency on python3-devel, so the explicit "BuildRequires: python3-devel" is not needed. In fact, even just using "%pyproject_buildrequires" should suffice; see https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379. > - missing %check, even here is some logic regarding pytest present, > will the new BuildSystem stuff run tests without any code in %check? You can read the "Provisional: Declarative Buildsystem (RPM 4.20+)" section at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros to see how this works. The pyproject declarative buildsystem is generating sections like this: %prep %autosetup -p1 -C %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires %build %pyproject_wheel %install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files <options from BuildOption(install)> %check %pyproject_check_import You’re right that I’ve made an error here in failing to actually run the tests. Only the "%pyproject_check_import" smoke test happens implicitly. The solution is to add: %check -a %pytest -v However, I also ran into an undeclared test dependency on typing-extensions and filed an upstream PR, https://github.com/fastapi/annotated-doc/pull/12, which I’ll apply as a patch. I’ll upload a new submission shortly. Thanks for catching this!
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20251026/python-annotated-doc.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20251026/python-annotated-doc-0.0.3-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2110993 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9732483 to 9735294
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9735294 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406317-python-annotated-doc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09735294-python-annotated-doc/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.
Thanks for quick reply and links about declarative buildsystem. A cosmectic, non blocking issue, something missing in this line? # Not in requirements-tests.txt, but Package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #8) > Thanks for quick reply and links about declarative buildsystem. > > A cosmectic, non blocking issue, something missing in this line? > > # Not in requirements-tests.txt, but Good catch again! That was the beginning of a comment for an explicit BuildRequires on python3-typing-extensions, but I ended up dealing with that via the upstream PR. I need to simply remove that line.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-annotated-doc
FEDORA-2025-9cdb6a6df8 (python-annotated-doc-0.0.3-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9cdb6a6df8
FEDORA-2025-9cdb6a6df8 (python-annotated-doc-0.0.3-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.