Bug 2436472 - Review Request: python-opentelemetry-api - OpenTelemetry Python API
Summary: Review Request: python-opentelemetry-api - OpenTelemetry Python API
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carl George 🤠
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-02-03 19:27 UTC by Rodolfo Olivieri
Modified: 2026-02-11 12:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-02-11 12:45:47 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
carl: fedora-review+
fedora-admin-xmlrpc: mirror+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker FC-3098 0 None None None 2026-02-05 19:35:48 UTC

Description Rodolfo Olivieri 2026-02-03 19:27:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r0x0d/python-opentelemetry-api/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10091053-python-opentelemetry-api/python-opentelemetry-api.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r0x0d/python-opentelemetry-api/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10091053-python-opentelemetry-api/python-opentelemetry-api-1.39.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Description: OpenTelemetry Python API
Fedora Account System Username: r0x0d

The reason behind packaging this separately from the now retired https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-opentelemetry, is to avoid dealing with protobuf dependencies from opentelemetry-proto.

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2026-02-04 15:29:15 UTC
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

Comment 3 Carl George 🤠 2026-02-11 08:21:10 UTC
I've got two small nitpicks.

There are a few comments that seem like they're from a template ("Fill in..." and "Add top-level...") which should be dropped for legibility.

The manual inclusion of the LICENSE file isn't needed.  It's properly marked in the Python metadata so it is installed at /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/opentelemetry_api-1.39.1.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE and designated as a license in RPM metadata.

❯ rpm --query --package results/python3-opentelemetry-api-1.39.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm --licensefiles
/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/opentelemetry_api-1.39.1.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE
/usr/share/licenses/python3-opentelemetry-api/LICENSE

This is enforced by `%pyproject_save_files -l`, so if something changes in the future where it isn't included it will fail the build.  The manual duplicate should be removed.

This looks good overall, and the nitpicks can be resolved at import time or later.  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 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.
[-]: 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: 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 377 bytes in 1 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.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[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.

===== 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.

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-02-11 12:13:38 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-opentelemetry-api

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2026-02-11 12:42:28 UTC
FEDORA-2026-42fb1711cc (python-opentelemetry-api-1.39.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-42fb1711cc

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2026-02-11 12:43:35 UTC
FEDORA-2026-cc1f4ff08c (python-opentelemetry-api-1.39.1-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-cc1f4ff08c

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2026-02-11 12:45:47 UTC
FEDORA-2026-42fb1711cc (python-opentelemetry-api-1.39.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2026-02-11 12:45:57 UTC
FEDORA-2026-cc1f4ff08c (python-opentelemetry-api-1.39.1-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.