Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
python-marshmallow-oneofschema - An extension to marshmallow to support schema (de)multiplexing. Reproducible: Always
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-44-x86_64/10351588-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/python-marshmallow_oneofschema.spec srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-44-x86_64/Packages/p/python-marshmallow-oneofschema-3.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Are you using an LLM to write these spec files? I keep seeing things that I wouldn’t expect anyone to choose explicitly, like a plain HTTP URL, a bunch of unnecessary manual BuildRequires / missing %pyproject_buildrequires, extra periods, inconsistent style across multiple submissions… It’s OK to turn to an LLM for assistance, but submitting unchecked and unedited LLM output just means potential reviewers have to do much more work. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file needs to be named python-marshmallow-oneofschema.spec, not python-marshmallow_oneofschema.spec, in order to match the package name (which is correct; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming). ---- You are using %pyproject_wheel/%pyproject_install, but not %pyproject_buildrequires or %pyproject_files. These macros are designed to work together. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros Remove all of this: BuildRequires: python3-pip python3-wheel BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3-setuptools python3-hatchling python3-flit-core pyproject-rpm-macros (You can leave in the BuildRequires on python3-devel if you like, but it is unnecessary when using %pyproject_buildrequires, https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379.) (Also, what’s up with manually depending on three different build backends, when only one is correct? Is this the result of trying things randomly, or is this a bit of AI slop?) Instead, after the %prep section, add this: %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires After %pyproject_install, add: %pyproject_save_files -l %{srcnamenu} …and replace all of this: # Note that there is no %%files section for the unversioned python module %files -n python3-%{srcname} %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcnamenu}-*.dist-info/ %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcnamenu}/ …with this: %files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files} Then, you should also install documentation relevent to users, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation: below this %files line, add: %doc CHANGELOG.rst %doc README.rst You *must* at least run an import-only “smoke test” if you are not running the test suite, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests, so add: %check %pyproject_check_import but you can and should also run the tests, by adding BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) or BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} and then in %check, %pytest ---- The URL should be HTTPS, not HTTP, and it seems poorly chosen anyway. Why link to the overall marshmallow docs, which won’t mention this extension? Consider just using the GitHub project instead, https://github.com/marshmallow-code/marshmallow-oneofschema. ---- A better Source URL would be: Source: https://github.com/marshmallow-code/marshmallow-oneofschema/archive/%{version}/marshmallow-oneofschema-%{version}.tar.gz That way, the archive name matches the extraction directory. Even if you don’t take this advice, at least use the %{version} macro instead of hard-coding the version number in the Source URL. ---- It’s my opinion that “name macros” like %srcname, %srcnamenu, %pypi_name, %modname, and so on add a layer of indirection that makes the spec file harder to read, without making the spec file meaningly more “reusable” as a template for other packages. I highly recommend dropping these macros and replacing them with the actual strings. However, there’s no policy against such macro indirection, and this wouldn’t block approval. ---- Remove the period at the end of the Summary. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_dos_and_donts The description has a leading space on the last line, and an extra period at the end of the last line. Please fix these, too. ---- Consider using rpmautospec (%autorelease / %autochangelog). This isn’t required for new packages, but it’s encouraged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs https://fedora-infra.github.io/rpmautospec-docs/opting-in Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: python-marshmallow_oneofschema.spec should be python-marshmallow- oneofschema.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages (Spurious: python3-libs owns these) [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. (However, the spec file is incorrectly named.) [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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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. [!]: 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 ===== 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. [?]: 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. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/ben/fedora/review/2460021-python- marshmallow_oneofschema/srpm-unpacked/python- marshmallow_oneofschema.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-marshmallow-oneofschema-3.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-marshmallow-oneofschema-3.2.0-1.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/tmpv6uif_y4')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-marshmallow-oneofschema.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot An extension to marshmallow to support schema (de)multiplexing. python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot An extension to marshmallow to support schema (de)multiplexing. python-marshmallow-oneofschema.src: E: spelling-error ('de', 'Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d') python-marshmallow-oneofschema.src: E: spelling-error ('schemas', '%description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes') python-marshmallow-oneofschema.src: E: spelling-error ('Deserialization', '%description -l en_US Deserialization -> Serialization, Materialization, Denationalization') python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: E: spelling-error ('de', 'Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d') python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: E: spelling-error ('schemas', '%description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes') python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Deserialization', '%description -l en_US Deserialization -> Serialization, Materialization, Denationalization') python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: W: no-documentation python-marshmallow_oneofschema.spec: W: no-%check-section python-marshmallow-oneofschema.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 7 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-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot An extension to marshmallow to support schema (de)multiplexing. python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: E: spelling-error ('de', 'Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d') python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: E: spelling-error ('schemas', '%description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes') python3-marshmallow-oneofschema.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 4 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/marshmallow-code/marshmallow-oneofschema/archive/refs/tags/3.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9563442dd2e6f0062e71fed8f34ac0efc9aef4f0650a8749302f2984ceb43f63 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9563442dd2e6f0062e71fed8f34ac0efc9aef4f0650a8749302f2984ceb43f63 Requires -------- python3-marshmallow-oneofschema (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(marshmallow) < 5~~ with python3.14dist(marshmallow) >= 3) python(abi) Provides -------- python3-marshmallow-oneofschema: python-marshmallow-oneofschema python3-marshmallow-oneofschema python3.14-marshmallow-oneofschema python3.14dist(marshmallow-oneofschema) python3dist(marshmallow-oneofschema) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2460021 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, Java, Haskell, Perl, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Dear Ben, first of all -- many thanks for reviewing my submissions. In the next 1-2 days I will fix the issues you have pointed in the .spec files. Concerning the origin of the submissions: those came as dependencies of a single project that requires approximately 10-15 simple packages in Fedora to be used in Fedora out of the box. The .spec files for the dependency packages were written in a course of 2-3 years using some other Python packages from Fedora as examples. The builds were executed many times in github Actions and in COPR. However, as you have pmentioned there are some inconsistencies ( which I'm eager to fix asap) in the style and quality of specs. The main reason is that while I do understand Fedora packaging for C++/Fortran/etc. packages relatively well, I have difficulties with the rapidly changing Python packaging prescriptions. And you are totally correct, for "modernising" the build and install sections I've tried to use LLM. So far it seems the results are not very nice, so I will read your comments and do things manually. Once again, many-many thanks for the review. I will implement the changes for this and other packages asap. Best regards, Andrii
Concerning the project in question -- that is Indico event management system, https://getindico.io/. Indico is developed by CERN and is used by many hundreds of educational/public organizations over the world, including CERN and United Nations.
Thank you for the follow-up comments! I am glad the above review is helpful. While my spare “bandwidth” for package reviews is somewhat limited at the moment, I’ll be happy to advise you and to review as many of these submissions as I can. Please do feel free to CC me on any review that doesn’t seem to be finding a taker, and I’ll see if I can work it in.
Dear Ben, many thanks! I will read the documentation and follow the examples to reduce the required review efforts. Best regards, Andrii spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10356728-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/python-marshmallow-oneofschema.spec sprm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-marshmallow-oneofschema-3.2.0-1.fc45.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10359834 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2460021-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10359834-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/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.
Update to use pypi_source. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-44-x86_64/10361333-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/python-marshmallow-oneofschema.spec sprm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-marshmallow-oneofschema-3.2.0-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2138089 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10359834 to 10361346
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10361346 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2460021-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10361346-python-marshmallow-oneofschema/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 and source RPM links give a 404 error because COPR has garbage-collected the build. Please consider putting your submission somewhere more durable, like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org.
Dear Ben, sorry for the long break. I will find out how to put the builds in a more durable place. Best regards, Andrii