Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/guillermodotn/dotbot/srpm-builds/10397986/python-dotbot.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/guillermodotn/dotbot/srpm-builds/10397986/python-dotbot-1.24.1-1.src.rpm copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/guillermodotn/dotbot Description: Dotbot makes installing your dotfiles as easy as 'git clone $url && cd dotfiles && ./install', even on a freshly installed system. It is designed to be lightweight and self-contained, with no external dependencies. Dotbot can also be a drop-in replacement for any other tool you were using to manage your dotfiles. Upstream: https://github.com/anishathalye/dotbot License: MIT Successful Copr builds: - fedora-rawhide-x86_64 - fedora-43-x86_64 - fedora-42-x86_64 rpmlint output (SRPM): python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', 'Summary(en_US) dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, defiles') python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', '%description -l en_US dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, defiles') python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('url', '%description -l en_US url -> URL, URLs, Ural') python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('cd', '%description -l en_US cd -> CD, Cd, CAD') python-dotbot.spec: W: no-%check-section rpmlint output (binary RPM): python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', 'Summary(en_US) dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, defiles') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', '%description -l en_US dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, defiles') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('url', '%description -l en_US url -> URL, URLs, Ural') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cd', '%description -l en_US cd -> CD, Cd, CAD') python3-dotbot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dotbot All spelling errors are false positives: "dotfiles" is the standard domain term, "url" and "cd" are shell command/variable references in example text. Upstream does not provide a man page for the dotbot binary. Test: %check is disabled because tests require filesystem symlink operations and a real home directory that are unavailable in the mock build environment. FAS: guillermodotn Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10405275 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2463381-python-dotbot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10405275-python-dotbot/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, so this cannot be reviewed. Please consider putting your submission somewhere more durable, like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org.
Created attachment 2146331 [details] Dotbot SRCRPM
My bad, I thought this process will take less time and didn't revisit the Copr links for a while. I have attached the SRPM to this issue. Hope that is enough.
It is *much* easier to review a package that has a working spec-file link and source RPM link, because it just takes “fedora-review -b 2463381”. This way, I have to download the attachment, name it appropriately, extract the spec file from inside the source RPM, and then run “fedora-review -n python-dotbot”. Still, I’ve done this and taken the review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - You don’t need to number the Source, especially if you aren’t going to refer to it by number. Just “Source:”, instead of “Source0:”, will do. - The explicit “BuildRequires: python3-devel” is harmless, but not required as long as you are using “%pyproject_buildrequires” or “BuildSystem: pyproject”. See https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379, https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384. - If you are not planning to branch this to EPEL9/10 with the same spec file, you might consider using the new pyproject long options since they are more immediately readable: %pyproject_save_files --assert-license dotbot See “Long option support and options reference” in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/README.md. ===== Issues ===== - I agree with not packaging CONTRIBUTING.md and DEVELOPMENT.md, since they are really about interacting with upstream, but I would suggest adding %doc CHANGELOG.md - This is not accurate: # Tests require a real home directory, filesystem symlink operations, # and git, which are not available in the mock build environment. # %%check # %%pytest The test code uses a mocked “home directory” in the build tree, symlinks work fine in mock, and only one test requires git (and you can make it work, too). You can and should run the tests. Even if you couldn’t run any tests, you would be required to at least run a “%pyproject_check_import” smoke-test, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests. To run nearly all of the tests, add: # See [tool.hatch.envs.hatch-test.overrides] in pyproject.toml BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-mock} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-randomly} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-rerunfailures} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-xdist[psutil]} Then: %check %pyproject_check_import %pytest -rs The %pyproject_check_import is optional here since you are running the test suite, but it doesn’t hurt. The “-rs” prints the reasons for skipped tests, which is useful to find out if there are more that can be easily enabled. This gets you as far as: =========================== short test summary info ============================ SKIPPED [1] tests/test_link.py:1037: These if commands only run on Windows. SKIPPED [1] tests/test_link.py:1006: These if commands only run on Windows SKIPPED [1] tests/test_shim.py:17: git is unavailable ================= 147 passed, 3 skipped, 78 warnings in 0.59s ================== which is great! Now we’re running nearly all the tests. It turns out you can easily enable the test_shim test, too. You just need to have git available, *and* be running the tests in a git repository, which doesn’t have to be a git checkout of the whole upstream repository. Add this: # Enables one additional test: BuildRequires: git-core and pass “-S git” to the %autosetup macro. =========================== short test summary info ============================ SKIPPED [1] tests/test_link.py:1037: These if commands only run on Windows. SKIPPED [1] tests/test_link.py:1006: These if commands only run on Windows ================= 148 passed, 2 skipped, 78 warnings in 0.75s ================== ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/review-python- dotbot/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.15 Spurious diagnostic: 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 20814 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. (tests would pass, if you ran them) [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 test this. The package is noarch and is not of a category (mathematical software operating on packed data, binary file and serialization format implementations) that is likely to have architecture-dependent bugs in pure-Python code. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. You must run at least an import smoke test. You can and should run the upstream test suite. [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-dotbot-1.24.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-dotbot-1.24.1-1.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/tmpli119x28')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', 'Summary(en_US) dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, domiciles') python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', '%description -l en_US dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, domiciles') python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('url', '%description -l en_US url -> URL, curl, purl') python-dotbot.src: E: spelling-error ('cd', '%description -l en_US cd -> CD, dc, Cd') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', 'Summary(en_US) dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, domiciles') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', '%description -l en_US dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, domiciles') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('url', '%description -l en_US url -> URL, curl, purl') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cd', '%description -l en_US cd -> CD, dc, Cd') python3-dotbot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dotbot python-dotbot.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', 'Summary(en_US) dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, domiciles') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dotfiles', '%description -l en_US dotfiles -> dot files, dot-files, domiciles') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('url', '%description -l en_US url -> URL, curl, purl') python3-dotbot.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cd', '%description -l en_US cd -> CD, dc, Cd') python3-dotbot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dotbot 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/dotbot/dotbot-1.24.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83def50fa1625530066f105b88c2dc1c61e27536433488a12324eb0b55a14730 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83def50fa1625530066f105b88c2dc1c61e27536433488a12324eb0b55a14730 Requires -------- python3-dotbot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.15dist(pyyaml) < 7~~ with python3.15dist(pyyaml) >= 6.0.1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-dotbot: python-dotbot python3-dotbot python3.15-dotbot python3.15dist(dotbot) python3dist(dotbot) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-dotbot Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, R, Java, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Added full test suite during %check build phase and uploaded the updated artifacts to Fedora People: spec: https://guillermodotn.fedorapeople.org/bugzilla-2463381/python-dotbot.spec srpm: https://guillermodotn.fedorapeople.org/bugzilla-2463381/python-dotbot-1.24.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10647228 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2463381-python-dotbot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10647228-python-dotbot/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 source diff from the previous submission is: --- ../review-python-dotbot/srpm-unpacked/python-dotbot.spec 2026-04-28 08:25:53.000000000 +0100 +++ srpm-unpacked/python-dotbot.spec 2026-06-24 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel +BuildRequires: python3-pytest %global _description %{expand: Dotbot makes installing your dotfiles as easy as @@ -38,10 +39,8 @@ %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l dotbot -# Tests require a real home directory, filesystem symlink operations, -# and git, which are not available in the mock build environment. -# %%check -# %%pytest +%check +%pytest %files -n python3-dotbot -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.md You only added pytest as a dependency, and it worked, so the pytest plugins weren’t really necessary, which is nice. You chose not to jump through the extra hoops to run test_shim (BR git-core and pass “-S git” to %autoseup), and you chose not to pass “-rs” to “%pytest” to print the reasons for skipped tests. All of this is acceptable, as you are now successfully running the great majority of tests: ================= 147 passed, 3 skipped, 78 warnings in 0.58s ================== You chose not to implement any of the suggestions from the “Notes” section. This is OK; they are only suggestions. There are no new and interesting diagnostics in the rpmlint output or the fedora-review template. I still think you should package CHANGELOG.md as documentation, too, but this doesn’t need to block the review. Based on the original review above plus a close inspection of the changes in the latest submission, this package is APPROVED.