SPEC: https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-promptml.spec SRPM: https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-promptml-0.7.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: PromptML is built to provide a way for prompt engineers to define the AI prompts in a deterministic way. This is a Domain Specific Language (DSL) which defines characteristics of a prompt including context, objective, instructions and it's metadata. A regular prompt is an amalgamation of all these aspects into one entity. PromptML splits it into multiple sections and makes the information explicit. FAS account: msuchy Reproducible: Always
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: python-promptml - A simple markup language for defining AI Prompts as Code (APaC) As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build]. --- 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9840451 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417225-python-promptml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09840451-python-promptml/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 ===== 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. [-]: 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: 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. [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. [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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-promptml-0.7.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-promptml-0.7.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpcfjsaaun')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-promptml.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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-promptml.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/promptml/promptml-0.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3dfabe9a8d0155f142467be6f549b972b34c19e9b100d5984883d4704d5ec871 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3dfabe9a8d0155f142467be6f549b972b34c19e9b100d5984883d4704d5ec871 Requires -------- python3-promptml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(lark) python3.14dist(pyyaml) Provides -------- python3-promptml: python-promptml python3-promptml python3.14-promptml python3.14dist(promptml) python3dist(promptml) Summary: --------- a) > # Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora Remove this line b) - check if the tests (https://github.com/narenaryan/promptml/tree/main/tests) can be added to a %check section
Both things edited. Files updated: Spec URL: https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-promptml.spec SRPM URL: https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-promptml-0.7.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2116358 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9840451 to 9842497
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9842497 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417225-python-promptml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09842497-python-promptml/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, package is APPROVED
Thank you for the review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-promptml
FEDORA-2025-ac111c62e0 (python-promptml-0.7.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ac111c62e0
FEDORA-2025-ac111c62e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-ac111c62e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ac111c62e0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-ac111c62e0 (python-promptml-0.7.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.