Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-diagnostic/python-diagnostic.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-diagnostic/python-diagnostic-3.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The diagnostic package makes it easier to build command line tools with great error reporting. I am willing to swap reviews.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9936495 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2423975-python-diagnostic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09936495-python-diagnostic/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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2119297 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9936495 to 9936651
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9936651 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2423975-python-diagnostic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09936651-python-diagnostic/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.
Taking this review.
Ooh, I'm excited to see something using declarative builds! Spec review: > VCS: git:%{giturl}.git Uhh, what is this? We have no specification for the VCS tag, so how is something supposed to figure this out? (Also, wouldn't git+https make sense as the protocol?) Review notes: * Package output follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines * Package builds and installs * Some directory ownership issues (dynamic subpackage definitions aren't pulling in Python as a runtime dep?) - From fedora-review: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages * Package licensing seems to be correct and valid I'm not sure what we should do about the directory ownership issue...?
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > VCS: git:%{giturl}.git > > Uhh, what is this? We have no specification for the VCS tag, so how is > something supposed to figure this out? I'm not sure what you mean. The VCS tag is described here: https://rpm.org/docs/6.0.x/manual/tags.html. The part on the left of the first colon is the command to run to checkout the upstream source code repository. The part on the right is the argument(s) to give to that command. > (Also, wouldn't git+https make sense as the protocol?) It isn't a protocol. It's a command to run. > Review notes: > > * Package output follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines > * Package builds and installs > * Some directory ownership issues (dynamic subpackage definitions aren't > pulling in Python as a runtime dep?) > - From fedora-review: Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages > * Package licensing seems to be correct and valid > > I'm not sure what we should do about the directory ownership issue...? I've seen that on the last few python reviews I've done. I'm not sure what changed to make that warning start popping up, but I think it is spurious. In this case: - python3-diagnostic Requires python(abi) - python(abi) is Provided by the python3 package - python3 Requires python3-libs - python3-libs owns both /usr/lib/python3.14 and /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages So there really is no directory ownership issue. We should probably figure out how to make fedora-review stop warning about it.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #7) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > > VCS: git:%{giturl}.git > > > > Uhh, what is this? We have no specification for the VCS tag, so how is > > something supposed to figure this out? > > I'm not sure what you mean. The VCS tag is described here: > https://rpm.org/docs/6.0.x/manual/tags.html. The part on the left of the > first colon is the command to run to checkout the upstream source code > repository. The part on the right is the argument(s) to give to that > command. > > > (Also, wouldn't git+https make sense as the protocol?) > > It isn't a protocol. It's a command to run. > But what *actually* does this? Because I don't know of anything that does... But okay, that *is* what it says... > > Review notes: > > > > * Package output follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines > > * Package builds and installs > > * Some directory ownership issues (dynamic subpackage definitions aren't > > pulling in Python as a runtime dep?) > > - From fedora-review: Note: Directories without known owners: > > /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages > > * Package licensing seems to be correct and valid > > > > I'm not sure what we should do about the directory ownership issue...? > > I've seen that on the last few python reviews I've done. I'm not sure what > changed to make that warning start popping up, but I think it is spurious. > In this case: > - python3-diagnostic Requires python(abi) > - python(abi) is Provided by the python3 package > - python3 Requires python3-libs > - python3-libs owns both /usr/lib/python3.14 and > /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages > > So there really is no directory ownership issue. We should probably figure > out how to make fedora-review stop warning about it. Sigh, okay. :/ There aren't any other issues, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > But what *actually* does this? Because I don't know of anything that does... The VCS field is strictly informative. It's for the benefit of those who install the package and want to know how to get hold of the source code. You are correct: as far as I know, there is no software that consumes that field. > There aren't any other issues, so... > > PACKAGE APPROVED. Thank you for the review, Neal. I appreciate it.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-diagnostic
FEDORA-2025-0d60a4a2f4 (python-diagnostic-3.0.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0d60a4a2f4
FEDORA-2025-0d60a4a2f4 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-2025-0d60a4a2f4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0d60a4a2f4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-0d60a4a2f4 (python-diagnostic-3.0.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.