Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-openapi-pydantic/python-openapi-pydantic.spec SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-openapi-pydantic/python-openapi-pydantic-0.5.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Pydantic OpenAPI schema implementation. Fedora Account System Username: r0x0d
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9863312 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418666-python-openapi-pydantic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09863312-python-openapi-pydantic/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file license.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Overall this looks pretty good, but I do recommend a few adjustments. The Python guidelines recommend using the -l flag with %pyproject_save_files to terminate the build if the license file is missing. This can be done with the pyproject BuildSystem by adding that flag like so: -BuildOption(install): openapi_pydantic +BuildOption(install): -l openapi_pydantic https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros The pyproject BuildSystem adds a basic %check section with %pyproject_check_import. Upstream has a test suite that should also be run. This can be done by appending to the %check section like so: +%check -a +%pytest https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/README.md#:~:text=Declarative I tried a build with the tests and noticed it will involve a few other related changes. The PyPI tarball is missing the tests directory, so the Source can be switched to the GitHub tarball to get these. -Source: %{pypi_source openapi_pydantic} +# PyPI tarball is missing tests +Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/openapi-pydantic-%{version}.tar.gz The tests require pytest and openapi-spec-validator, which are specified in pyproject.toml as a poetry group, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be supported by %pyproject_buildrequires yet. For now the easiest solution is to just list those dependencies manually. +BuildRequires: python3-pytest +BuildRequires: python3-openapi-spec-validator
Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-openapi-pydantic/python-openapi-pydantic.spec SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-openapi-pydantic/python-openapi-pydantic-0.5.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2117595 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9863312 to 9877296
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9877296 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2418666-python-openapi-pydantic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09877296-python-openapi-pydantic/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file license.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
After catching up in chat, we realized -l won't work everywhere, so for now it's better to go with -L and an explicit license file. One final note, the BuildSystem stuff already runs %pyproject_check_import for you, so you don't need to list it in %check -a. We don't need to block the review on it, just please remove that one line while importing the package. 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 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]: 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. 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-openapi-pydantic
FEDORA-2025-d8b55c8ec4 (python-openapi-pydantic-0.5.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d8b55c8ec4
FEDORA-2025-b394f22d0a (python-openapi-pydantic-0.5.1-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b394f22d0a
FEDORA-2025-b394f22d0a (python-openapi-pydantic-0.5.1-1.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-d8b55c8ec4 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-d8b55c8ec4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d8b55c8ec4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-d8b55c8ec4 (python-openapi-pydantic-0.5.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.