Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-uncalled-for/python-uncalled-for.spec SRPM URL: https://r0x0d.fedorapeople.org/python-uncalled-for/python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Async dependency injection for Python functions. Declare what your function needs as parameter defaults. They show up resolved when the function runs. No ceremony, no container, no configuration. Fedora Account System Username: r0x0d
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10461113 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2477586-python-uncalled-for/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10461113-python-uncalled-for/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.
This package won't land in Fedora 42 as it is EOL, plus, there is no need (yet) for landing in other versions other than rawhide. The failure in the copr result above can ignored.
No issues found; the package is APPROVED. If you have some time to look at a similarly straightforward Python package review, please consider bug 2406711 or bug 2406722. Both are low-priority, but have been hanging around for a while. If you don’t have time, don’t worry about it! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel OK: %pyproject_buildrequires suffices. ===== 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". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2477586-python-uncalled- for/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 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. [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: 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. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/uncalled_for-0.3.2.dist-info/licenses/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 890 bytes in 1 files. [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145615297 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.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/tmpyys8uwdx')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/uncalled_for/uncalled_for-0.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 89f5dbcd71e2b8f47c030b1fa302e6cce2ec795d1ac565eeb6525c5fe55cb8a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89f5dbcd71e2b8f47c030b1fa302e6cce2ec795d1ac565eeb6525c5fe55cb8a2 Requires -------- python3-uncalled-for (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-uncalled-for: python-uncalled-for python3-uncalled-for python3.14-uncalled-for python3.14dist(uncalled-for) python3dist(uncalled-for) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2477586-python-uncalled-for/srpm/python-uncalled-for.spec 2026-05-18 20:18:10.592996598 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2477586-python-uncalled-for/srpm-unpacked/python-uncalled-for.spec 2026-05-14 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-uncalled-for Version: 0.3.2 @@ -57,3 +67,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu May 14 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.3.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2477586 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Java, fonts, Perl, R, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks! For sure, I will sync with my mentor about reviewing your packages. I have never done it before, so probably it will take me some time to get it right. I will assign both to me so I won't forget.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-uncalled-for Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-191587b58a (python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-191587b58a
FEDORA-2026-191587b58a (python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-4fc5dad33e (python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4fc5dad33e
FEDORA-2026-8c8aa51a8c (python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8c8aa51a8c
FEDORA-2026-8c8aa51a8c 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-2026-8c8aa51a8c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8c8aa51a8c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-4fc5dad33e 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-2026-4fc5dad33e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4fc5dad33e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-8c8aa51a8c (python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-4fc5dad33e (python-uncalled-for-0.3.2-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.