spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-44-x86_64/10352270-python-marshmallow_dataclass/python-marshmallow-dataclass.spec
srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-44-x86_64/Packages/p/python-marshmallow_dataclass-8.7.1-1.fc44.src.rpm

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.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10355222
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2460062-python-marshmallow_dataclass/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10355222-python-marshmallow_dataclass/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.

New packages “MUST” use the current Python packaging guidelines with pyproject-rpm-macros, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/, rather than the “201x-era” Python packaging guidelines, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/, as in this submission.

This is a simple package, so you should find it straightforward to update it to current practices. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_spec_file for an example.

Dear Ben,

many thanks for the review. The updated version should be significantly improved.

Best regards,

Andrii

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10356711-python-marshmallow-dataclass/python-marshmallow-dataclass.spec
srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-marshmallow_dataclass-8.7.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10359817
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2460062-python-marshmallow_dataclass/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10359817-python-marshmallow_dataclass/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.

It looks like the names of packages should be normalized.


spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10361134-python-marshmallow-dataclass/python-marshmallow-dataclass.spec
srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/averbyts/I3313/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/p/python-marshmallow-dataclass-8.7.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10361241
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2460062-python-marshmallow-dataclass/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10361241-python-marshmallow-dataclass/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 URL gives me a 404 error, which made this less convenient to review. I
used only the source RPM, extracting the spec therein.

Overall, this is starting to look much better! Thanks for your effort.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

  OK: %pyproject_buildrequires suffices.

- The zero-argument form of %{pypi_source} is deprecated.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pypi_source

  Instead, write

    Source:         %{pypi_source %{srcname}}

  or

    Source:         %{pypi_source marshmallow_dataclass}

- Since the license file installed in .dist-info is already properly handled in
  %{pyproject_files} (and passing -l to %pyproject_save_files asserts this),
  you can and should omit the duplicate LICENSE file under /usr/share/licenses.

    $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-marshmallow-dataclass-8.7.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/marshmallow_dataclass-8.7.1.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE
    /usr/share/licenses/python3-marshmallow-dataclass/LICENSE

  So, remove this:

    %license LICENSE

- If you are going to ignore tests/test_class_schema.py and
  tests/test_collection.py, please add a comment explaining why this is
  necessary.

  In my testing, only one test fails if I restore these two test modules:

    =================================== FAILURES ===================================
    ______________ TestSetField.test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types _______________
    
    self = <test_collection.TestSetField testMethod=test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types>
    
        def test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types(self):
    	@dataclass
    	class SetIntSet:
    	    value: Set[Set[int]]
    
    	schema = SetIntSet.Schema()
    
    	with self.assertRaises(TypeError) as err_info:
    	    schema.load({"value": {set()}})
    >       self.assertEqual(str(err_info.exception), "unhashable type: 'set'")
    E       AssertionError: "cannot use 'set' as a set element (unhashable type: 'set')" != "unhashable type: 'set'"
    E       - cannot use 'set' as a set element (unhashable type: 'set')
    E       + unhashable type: 'set'
    
    tests/test_collection.py:191: AssertionError
    =========================== short test summary info ============================
    FAILED tests/test_collection.py::TestSetField::test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types
    =================== 1 failed, 111 passed, 1 xfailed in 0.21s ===================

  This is a real but insignificant test failure, as just the string
  representation has changed. You could skip just that one test with

    --deselect tests/test_collection.py::TestSetField::test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types

  or

    -k 'not (TestSetField and test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types)'

  but it’s better for this sort of thing to be fixed upstream. Helpfully, this
  is already handled in an unreleased commit, and you can just add something
  like

    # Fix test_set_only_work_in_hashable_types on Python 3.14
    Patch:          https://github.com/lovasoa/marshmallow_dataclass/commit/1601dab5f4fcfee5a14e88d1470ae4862f5c94d2.patch

  and pass “-p1” to %autosetup, and you’ll have all of the tests passing.

===== Notes (no change required for approval) ====

- Consider using rpmautospec. You could change:

    Release:        1%{?dist}

  to

    Release:        %autorelease

  and

    %changelog
    * Tue Apr 21 2026 Andrii Verbytskyi <andrii.verbytskyi.de> 8.7.1-1
    - First version of 8.7.1 for Fedora

  to

    %changelog
    %autochangelog

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

- I think that *name macros like %srcname and %srcnameu make the spec file
  harder to read without any significant benefit. I recommend omitting these
  macros and simply writing out the names where they occur. However, you can
  keep them if you like them.

===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/review-python-marshmallow-
     dataclass/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

     OK: fedora-review is confused; 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10562 bytes in 1 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: 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]: 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]: 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.

     (Tests pass.)

[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.

     I didn’t take time to test this. The nature of the package makes
     architecture-dependent failures unlikely.

[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-marshmallow-dataclass-8.7.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          python-marshmallow-dataclass-8.7.1-1.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/tmpv3jqn8ry')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-marshmallow-dataclass.src: E: spelling-error ('schemas', 'Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes')
python-marshmallow-dataclass.src: E: spelling-error ('dataclasses', 'Summary(en_US) dataclasses -> data classes, data-classes, databases')
python-marshmallow-dataclass.src: E: spelling-error ('dataclasses', '%description -l en_US dataclasses -> data classes, data-classes, databases')
python-marshmallow-dataclass.src: E: spelling-error ('schemas', '%description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('schemas', 'Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dataclasses', 'Summary(en_US) dataclasses -> data classes, data-classes, databases')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dataclasses', '%description -l en_US dataclasses -> data classes, data-classes, databases')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('schemas', '%description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.4 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-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('schemas', 'Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dataclasses', 'Summary(en_US) dataclasses -> data classes, data-classes, databases')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dataclasses', '%description -l en_US dataclasses -> data classes, data-classes, databases')
python3-marshmallow-dataclass.noarch: E: spelling-error ('schemas', '%description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/m/marshmallow_dataclass/marshmallow_dataclass-8.7.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4fb80e1bf7b31ce1b192aa87ffadee2cedb3f6f37bb0042f8500b07e6fad59c4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4fb80e1bf7b31ce1b192aa87ffadee2cedb3f6f37bb0042f8500b07e6fad59c4


Requires
--------
python3-marshmallow-dataclass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.14dist(typeguard) < 5~~ with python3.14dist(typeguard) >= 4)
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(marshmallow)
    python3.14dist(typing-inspect)



Provides
--------
python3-marshmallow-dataclass:
    python-marshmallow-dataclass
    python3-marshmallow-dataclass
    python3.14-marshmallow-dataclass
    python3.14dist(marshmallow-dataclass)
    python3dist(marshmallow-dataclass)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-marshmallow-dataclass
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, R, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH