spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pyexiftool.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.fc43.src.rpm description: PyExifTool is a Python library to communicate with an instance of Phil Harvey's ExifTool command-line application. The library provides the class exiftool.ExifTool that runs the command-line tool in batch mode and features methods to send commands to that program, including methods to extract meta-information from one or more image files. Since exiftool is run in batch mode, only a single instance needs to be launched and can be reused for many queries. This is much more efficient than launching a separate process for every single query. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Does this work instead of usign python -m installer? PYTHONPATH=%{_pyproject_wheeldir}/*.whl sphinx-build ... How is perl-Image-ExifTool used on runtime? Is it via /usr/bin/exiftool? If so, would it be more readable to (Build)Require that path directly? > sed -i '25d' conf.py Will this not bite you when the file is updated? Wouldn't a pattern-matching sed be safer than line number? > %dir %{_datadir}/help/en/ > %{_datadir}/help/en/python-pyexiftool/ Should this be marked as %doc?
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10288842 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2454239-python-pyexiftool/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10288842-python-pyexiftool/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.
I'll review it.
The package is in a good condition. I can't find any issues so here is my formal 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. [-]: The package is under multiple licenses, but the breakdown is unnecessary. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No need in a separate -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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No large documentation 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: 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 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: [-]: No Python eggs required. [-]: 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: [-]: No need to use parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.5.6). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify. [?]: i did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages tries 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-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.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/tmpurpvqjh9')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sylikc/pyexiftool/archive/v0.5.6/PyExifTool-0.5.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b58735ea896384b760299e46c383b62d7c22ec5249e7806167a464c1359a3d2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b58735ea896384b760299e46c383b62d7c22ec5249e7806167a464c1359a3d2 Requires -------- python3-pyexiftool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl-Image-ExifTool python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyexiftool: python-pyexiftool python3-pyexiftool python3.14-pyexiftool python3.14dist(pyexiftool) python3dist(pyexiftool) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2454239 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Java, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyexiftool Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Does this work instead of usign python -m installer? > > PYTHONPATH=%{_pyproject_wheeldir}/*.whl sphinx-build ... No, the wheel needs to be installed. > > How is perl-Image-ExifTool used on runtime? Is it via /usr/bin/exiftool? If > so, would it be more readable to (Build)Require that path directly? > > > sed -i '25d' conf.py > > Will this not bite you when the file is updated? Wouldn't a pattern-matching > sed be safer than line number? Have used a patch. > > > > %dir %{_datadir}/help/en/ > > %{_datadir}/help/en/python-pyexiftool/ > > Should this be marked as %doc? Have usually used %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-pyexiftool/ Can use %doc %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-pyexiftool/
Thanks for the review. https://release-monitoring.org/project/179014/
FEDORA-2026-1e21b8cb8b (python-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1e21b8cb8b
FEDORA-2026-0ef859f114 (python-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0ef859f114
FEDORA-2026-0ef859f114 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-2026-0ef859f114 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0ef859f114 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-1e21b8cb8b 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-2026-1e21b8cb8b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1e21b8cb8b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-1e21b8cb8b (python-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-0ef859f114 (python-pyexiftool-0.5.6-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.