Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/ty.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/ty-0.0.7-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: An extremely fast Python type checker and language server, written in Rust. Fedora Account System Username: music The Rust sources of ty are intermingled with those of ruff, and are co-developed in the same repository, https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff. The https://github.com/astral-sh/ty repository contains only the ty-specific bits, and includes the ruff repository as a submodule. We therefore document this as bundling ruff, although that doesn’t really reflect its roughly co-equal status in the same repository. We can’t reasonably build ty as a subpackage of the existing ruff package because ty and ruff are separately versioned, and a ty release may even use a commit of the ruff repository that doesn’t correspond to a ruff release. The spec file is designed to parallel the ruff spec file as closely as possible.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9952870 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2425500-ty/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09952870-ty/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.
Looks like there is a missing dependency Problem: nothing provides requested (crate(datatest-stable/default) >= 0.3.3 with crate(datatest-stable/default) < 0.4.0~)
(In reply to Tim Lauridsen from comment #2) > Looks like there is a missing dependency > > Problem: nothing provides requested (crate(datatest-stable/default) >= 0.3.3 > with crate(datatest-stable/default) < 0.4.0~) Yes, that’s why this was blocked on bug 2423802. Now that it’s been reviewed, I just built rust-datatest-stable in Rawhide, so this package should be reviewable with fedora-review --mock-options=--enablerepo=local within hours, and without it in a day or two once there’s been a fresh, successful Rawhide compose.
Updated submission for the latest upstream release: Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260106/ty.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260106/ty-0.0.9-1.fc43.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9977524 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2425500-ty/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09977524-ty/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9977689 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2425500-ty/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09977689-ty/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.
Updated submission for the latest upstream release: Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260121/ty.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260121/ty-0.0.12-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10042075 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2425500-ty/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10042075-ty/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.
Note that Fedora Review Service’s COPR build fails because this package takes more than five hours (the default timeout) to build.
Updated submission for the latest upstream release: Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260206/ty.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260206/ty-0.0.15-1.fc43.src.rpm
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License [generated file]". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/2425500-ty/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 184595 bytes in 2 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: [-]: 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. [ ]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-ty [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ty-0.0.15-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm python3-ty-0.0.15-1.fc44.noarch.rpm ty-0.0.15-1.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/tmppmuws2cs')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ty.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: /tmp/rpmlint.ty-0.0.15-1.fc44.src.rpm.b7tjhgnn/ty.spec line 331: autopatch: no matching patches in range ty.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: /tmp/rpmlint.ty-0.0.15-1.fc44.src.rpm.b7tjhgnn/ty.spec line 344: autopatch: no matching patches in range ty.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ty python3-ty.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ty-debuginfo-0.0.15-1.fc44.x86_64.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/tmpgbdtx2fd')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.1 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: 3 ty.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ty python3-ty.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/archive/0.0.15/ty-0.0.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8207eb7e8eb6da68c040c4770ad77ecb98b1aebfc27bf498695f1fc69d2c949 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8207eb7e8eb6da68c040c4770ad77ecb98b1aebfc27bf498695f1fc69d2c949 https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/archive/f055f39345ab85d747c3ce348e21274ee2870632/ruff-f055f39345ab85d747c3ce348e21274ee2870632.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e6384d094058633867f9bc6a7c561df7ca320390b1312e2ed5bb8846bcbe5083 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e6384d094058633867f9bc6a7c561df7ca320390b1312e2ed5bb8846bcbe5083 https://github.com/astral-sh/lsp-types/archive/3512a9f33eadc5402cfab1b8f7340824c8ca1439/lsp-types-3512a9f33eadc5402cfab1b8f7340824c8ca1439.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 410f889792e86186b6299ad534446510207a9e2e55b78301b77fc8b661b46913 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 410f889792e86186b6299ad534446510207a9e2e55b78301b77fc8b661b46913 https://github.com/salsa-rs/salsa/archive/e9b9ddd4bec50ac777e9353bbb8f1180e5669d89/salsa-e9b9ddd4bec50ac777e9353bbb8f1180e5669d89.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4fe407f565e67ee1a9507ea11b1549737c83e968f28491baa16ea53b406526b8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4fe407f565e67ee1a9507ea11b1549737c83e968f28491baa16ea53b406526b8 Requires -------- ty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libjemalloc.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-ty (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) ty Provides -------- ty: bundled(crate(annotate-snippets)) bundled(crate(lsp-types)) bundled(crate(salsa)) bundled(crate(salsa-macro-rules)) bundled(crate(salsa-macros)) bundled(ruff) bundled(typeshed) ty ty(x86-64) python3-ty: python-ty python3-ty python3.14-ty python3.14dist(ty) python3dist(ty) The spec file uses ExluceArch for ix86 as it is a leaf package and we can't build on this platform due to memory requirements. For "ty.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ty" I created https://github.com/astral-sh/ty/issues/2749
Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/387709/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ty
FEDORA-2026-8200b0ae6d (ty-0.0.15-2.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8200b0ae6d
FEDORA-2026-79c23bba89 (ty-0.0.15-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-79c23bba89
FEDORA-2026-8200b0ae6d (ty-0.0.15-2.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-79c23bba89 (ty-0.0.15-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-cfa51eeadb (ty-0.0.15-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-cfa51eeadb
FEDORA-2026-cfa51eeadb 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-2026-cfa51eeadb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-cfa51eeadb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-d40d5b3630 (ty-0.0.15-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d40d5b3630
FEDORA-2026-d40d5b3630 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-d40d5b3630 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d40d5b3630 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-cfa51eeadb (ty-0.0.15-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-b33ff939ce has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-b33ff939ce` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b33ff939ce See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-b33ff939ce (ty-0.0.17-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.