Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-discovery.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-discovery-1.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Python interpreter discovery. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a new package from the tox-dev organization; it was split out from virtualenv into a standalone package. It is a new dependency for the latest release of Hatch, and will probably soon be needed for other things as well. This is a trivial pure-Python package. I’ve chosen to use the provisional pyproject declarative buildsystem; see the README at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for details. https://release-monitoring.org/project/388662/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10180551 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443622-python-discovery/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10180551-python-discovery/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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #1) > - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network > unavailability), please ignore it. The build failed due to ongoing COPR infrastructure issues.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-discovery/2443622-python- discovery/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. [x]: 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). [ ]: 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 778 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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). [ ]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-discovery-1.1.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-discovery-1.1.0-1.fc45.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/tmpti8y7zum')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tox-dev/python-discovery/archive/1.1.0/python-discovery-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2759fdee1691a64dee613a4b0451e0fbd772ea26c56ec273c79696bffcb5f5c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2759fdee1691a64dee613a4b0451e0fbd772ea26c56ec273c79696bffcb5f5c1 Requires -------- python3-discovery (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(platformdirs) < 5~~ with python3.14dist(platformdirs) >= 4.3.6) python(abi) python3.14dist(filelock) Provides -------- python3-discovery: python-discovery python3-discovery python3.14-discovery python3.14dist(python-discovery) python3dist(python-discovery) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2443622 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142932152 b) Consider packaging the documentation. Happy to package missing dependencies, but not a blocker. c) Should the name be python-python-discovery? On Pypi, there are both discovery and python-discovery packages: https://pypi.org/project/python-discovery/ https://pypi.org/project/discovery/
Created attachment 2131629 [details] Example spec file with possibly correct name and option to build documentation
> - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_time_dependency_on_python3_devel: this requirement may be satisfied by any of: - an explicit, manual BuildRequires: python3-devel - use of %pyproject_buildrequires (c.f. the guidelines link above, as well as https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384) - use of BuildSystem: pyproject: not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines since the declarative buildsystem remains provisional, but see discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379 This package has BuildSystem: pyproject, so an explicit BuildRequires would be redundant. > b) Consider packaging the documentation. Happy to package missing dependencies, > but not a blocker. As a general rule, I no longer package generated documentation in Python packages. I was once a proponent of doing so, but I’ve slowly come around to the view that the value of generated offline documentation is not worth the complexity, added dependencies, and various issues associated with producing it. HTML documentation has various issues with bundled CSS, JS, fonts, etc. and their licenses. PDF documentation mostly sidesteps these, but can be fussy and brittle, and brings in heavy build dependencies on TeX Live. Your method of building documentation in texinfo format and then converting to Docbook XML is clever, appears to comply with packaging guidelines, and can be useful for those who know what to do with it. However, the result is a somewhat unusual format that people are less likely to discover or know how to read, and which needs close inspection for usefulness since it’s very unlikely to be tested by upstreams, who are in most cases exclusively targeting HTML; and the added spec-file complexity is viable, but not insignificant. Perhaps if there were a distribution-wide consensus that this was “the” way to handle Python documentation, then I might view this format as more worthwhile to produce. > c) Should the name be python-python-discovery? > On Pypi, there are both discovery and python-discovery packages: > https://pypi.org/project/python-discovery/ > https://pypi.org/project/discovery/ In https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming, the guidelines now explicitly state: > The Fedora component (source package) name for a library should be formed by taking the canonical project name and prepending python- if it does not already start with python-. This may leads to conflicts (e.g. between bugzilla and python-bugzilla). In that case, ensure upstream is aware of the potentially confusing naming and apply best judgment. Looking at https://pypi.org/project/discovery/#history, it was first released on June 2, 2015, and the final release was just three days later. The GitHub repository linked to by the PyPI page has been removed. It’s clear not only that this now is a dead project, but also that it never really got off the ground in the first place. It’s therefore vanishingly unlikely that the “other discovery package” will ever be submitted to Fedora. Considering this, and the above prescription quoted from the guidelines, I believe that python-discovery is the correct name.
The company that had the project still seems to be active: https://github.com/zymbit/ https://docs.zymbit.com/ but yes, it sems unless the package name is given to another project, that it will be unlikely to become a Fedora package. Approved. Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440337 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thank you for the review! I reviewed bug 2440337.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-discovery
FEDORA-2026-b0ade014f8 (python-discovery-1.1.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b0ade014f8
FEDORA-2026-b0ade014f8 (python-discovery-1.1.0-1.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-a773e0473b (python-discovery-1.1.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a773e0473b
FEDORA-2026-a773e0473b has been pushed to the Fedora 44 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-a773e0473b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a773e0473b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.