Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
python-Flask-PluginEngine - A simple plugin system for Flask applications. Reproducible: Always
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.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-44-x86_64/10349527-python-Flask-PluginEngine/python-Flask-PluginEngine.spec srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-Flask-PluginEngine-0.5-1.fc45.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10349537 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2459822-python-flask-pluginengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10349537-python-Flask-PluginEngine/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'm not a reviewer (this is just a mock review), but it looks like you might've linked the wrong SPEC file. Otherwise, this looks good to me. Issues ====== - The linked SPEC file differs from the SRPM - The linked SPEC file is missing %check (although it's in the SRPM version) 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bradan/2459822-python-Flask-PluginEngine/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [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. Remark: Not a rename. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Remark: No runtime deps. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. Note: No systemd files needed. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Remark: Tests should be executed. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 462 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 Remark: Missing %check, otherwise LGTM [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. Remark: License text included in upstream. [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. Remark: Signatures not published upstream [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Remark: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-Flask-PluginEngine-0.5-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-Flask-PluginEngine-0.5-1.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/tmpntn9eei6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-Flask-PluginEngine.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple plugin system for Flask applications. python3-Flask-PluginEngine.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple plugin system for Flask applications. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 python3-Flask-PluginEngine.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple plugin system for Flask applications. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/indico/flask-pluginengine/archive/refs/tags/v0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e051be064444d13e4cefbdc329e2c7b7441bb4d7c5171420024204ae552b830e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e051be064444d13e4cefbdc329e2c7b7441bb4d7c5171420024204ae552b830e Requires -------- python3-Flask-PluginEngine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(blinker) python3.14dist(flask) python3.14dist(importlib-metadata) python3.14dist(jinja2) Provides -------- python3-Flask-PluginEngine: python-Flask-PluginEngine python3-Flask-PluginEngine python3.14-Flask-PluginEngine python3.14dist(flask-pluginengine) python3dist(flask-pluginengine) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/bradan/2459822-python-Flask-PluginEngine/srpm/python-Flask-PluginEngine.spec 2026-04-22 12:43:56.461693112 -0700 +++ /home/bradan/2459822-python-Flask-PluginEngine/srpm-unpacked/python-Flask-PluginEngine.spec 2026-04-19 17:00:00.000000000 -0700 @@ -9,11 +9,7 @@ License: BSD-3-Clause URL: https://flask-pluginengine.readthedocs.io/ -Source0: https://github.com/indico/flask-pluginengine/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz - +Source: https://github.com/indico/flask-pluginengine/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch -BuildRequires: python3-devel -BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros - %description Flask-PluginEngine is an extension that provides interfaces to create plugins @@ -44,4 +40,7 @@ %doc README.rst +%check +%pyproject_check_import + %changelog * Mon Apr 20 2026 Andrii Verbytskyi <andrii.verbytskyi.de> 0.5-1 Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2459822 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, R, fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Dear Bradan, many thanks for the (mock) review. The reason of the differences is that now in COPR one cannot access the results of particular build, only the pulp-content and the logs (spec included). Means when one performs a new build, the srpm is overwritten. I'm not sure if that is a bug or a new feature. Best regards, Andrii spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10356719-python-Flask-PluginEngine/python-Flask-PluginEngine.spec srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-Flask-PluginEngine-0.5-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2138035 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10349537 to 10359739
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10359739 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2459822-python-flask-pluginengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10359739-python-Flask-PluginEngine/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.
Ah, I didn't know that, thanks for explaining. There are two nitpicks from fedora-review and rpmlint that I didn't notice before, but the package otherwise has no issues as far as I can tell. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Remark: Adding back "BuildRequires: python3-devel" would silence the warning, but I think it can be ignored because the guidelines explicitly say that %generate_buildrequires can be used to add the build-time dependency. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_time_dependency_on_python3_devel https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/ - The Summary tag shouldn't end with a period https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bradan/2459822-python-Flask-PluginEngine/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. [-]: 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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 462 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. [x]: 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). [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-Flask-PluginEngine-0.5-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-Flask-PluginEngine-0.5-1.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/tmp43zwne9y')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-Flask-PluginEngine.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple plugin system for Flask applications. python3-Flask-PluginEngine.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple plugin system for Flask applications. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 python3-Flask-PluginEngine.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A simple plugin system for Flask applications. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/indico/flask-pluginengine/archive/refs/tags/v0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e051be064444d13e4cefbdc329e2c7b7441bb4d7c5171420024204ae552b830e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e051be064444d13e4cefbdc329e2c7b7441bb4d7c5171420024204ae552b830e Requires -------- python3-Flask-PluginEngine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(blinker) python3.14dist(flask) python3.14dist(importlib-metadata) python3.14dist(jinja2) Provides -------- python3-Flask-PluginEngine: python-Flask-PluginEngine python3-Flask-PluginEngine python3.14-Flask-PluginEngine python3.14dist(flask-pluginengine) python3dist(flask-pluginengine) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2459822 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, C/C++, Perl, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Dear Bradan, thank you for the review! If I understand correctly one should also normalize properly the package names. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10361056-python-flask-pluginengine/python-flask-pluginengine.spec srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-flask-pluginengine-0.5-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2138088 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10359739 to 10361228
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10361228 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2459822-python-flask-pluginengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10361228-python-flask-pluginengine/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.
The spec-file URL gives a 404 not found error. It’s likely that COPR has garbage-collected the ancillary files for the build in question. Consider hosting your submission somewhere more durable, like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org.
Reupload: spec: https://gitlab.mpcdf.mpg.de/andriish/indico-rpms-fedora/-/raw/v202607101/RPM/python-flask-pluginengine/0.5/python-flask-pluginengine.spec srpm: https://datashare.mpcdf.mpg.de/public.php/dav/files/aES5x422LTb2QHX/v202607101-Fedora44/python-flask-pluginengine-0.5-1.fc44.src.rpm