Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-httpx2.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-httpx2-2.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: HTTPX2 is a fully featured HTTP client library for Python. It includes an integrated command line client, has support for both HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2, and provides both sync and async APIs. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a maintained fork of httpx (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-httpx, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-httpcore) by the Pydantic people. It’s now preferred over httpx by FastAPI and Starlette, and is required in lieu of httpx for Hatch version 1.17.0. Because upstream develops https://pypi.org/project/httpx2/ and https://pypi.org/project/httpcore2/ in the same git repository and uv workspace, versioning and releasing them synchronously, it makes sense to build both python3-httpx2 and python3-httpcore2 from a single source RPM. There is still some friction in doing this, but not as much friction as there would be in having two separate source packages that have the same source archive and must be updated in lockstep, and it will become even nicer once https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/pull-request/612 is ready.
Upstream offered a refinement to the PR for testing with chardet 6.x and merged the PR. I have updated the submission with a patch file corresponding to the PR as merged. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260602/python-httpx2.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260602/python-httpx2-2.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Note to self: replace PYTHONPATH='%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}' \ PATH="%{buildroot}%{_bindir}:${PATH}" \ help2man \ […] with %{py3_test_envvars} help2man \ […] which is more concise and, even if this isn’t *quite* the intended use, sets all of the necessary environment variables. I won’t bother to upload a new submission just for this tweak.
This was an interesting review due to the declarative buildsystem and the multiple library subpackages. fedora-review flagged a few things incorrectly, but they're all accounted for. PACKAGE APPROVED. 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 184 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/python-httpx2/2483970-python- httpx2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-httpx2 (description), python3-httpcore2 (description) [x]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages/httpx2-2.3.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_duplicate_files Reviewer note: Expected due to having two subpackages share the license file. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 83606 bytes in 4 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]: Dist tag is present. [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: [-]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Note: SRPM has this via the declarative BuildSystem [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-httpx2 , python3-httpcore2 [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Thank you very much for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/390460/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-httpx2 Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-e71a851cc2 (python-httpx2-2.3.0-4.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e71a851cc2
FEDORA-2026-e71a851cc2 (python-httpx2-2.3.0-4.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-64badf37c3 (python-httpx2-2.3.0-4.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-64badf37c3
FEDORA-2026-64badf37c3 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-2026-64badf37c3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-64badf37c3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-64badf37c3 (python-httpx2-2.3.0-4.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.