Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-jplephem/python-jplephem.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-jplephem/python-jplephem-2.24-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: This package can load and use a Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ephemeris for predicting the position and velocity of a planet or other Solar System body. It currently supports binary SPK files (extension .bsp) like those distributed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Fedora Account System Username: mattia
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10574592 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2485644-python-jplephem/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10574592-python-jplephem/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 package is APPROVED, and may be imported without any changes. However, please consider the commentary and suggestions below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ==== - The explicit BuildRequires on python3-devel is not needed when you have %pyproject_buildrequires (or BuildSystem: pyproject). See https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379 and https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384. It is harmless, though, so you are not required to remove it. - I personally think that the use of macros like %{pypi_name} (and in some cases %{srcname}, %{modname}, and so on) makes spec files harder to read due to added indirection. The usual justification for using them seems to be that it makes it easier to re-use one spec file as a template for a new package, but the macro merely avoids a straightforward search-and-replace without helping at all with the more meaningful differences between packages. However, this is purely a matter of opinion, and such macros are unequivocally permitted. - If you don’t need to branch this to EPEL9 or EPEL10, you might consider using the new long option support in the pyproject macros: %pyproject_save_files -l %{pypi_name} can become %pyproject_save_files --assert-license %{pypi_name} or %pyproject_save_files --assert-license jplephem This is self-documenting, making it a little easier to understand exactly what is happening in the spec file without intimate familiarity with the pyproject macros and their arguments. Using short or long options is a choice, and the packaging guidelines don’t impose a particular answer. - The tests that are skipped would have required the de421 package, https://pypi.org/project/de421/. It’s not reasonable to package this solely to run more tests, but if you do end up packaging python-de421 for other reasons, then you may want to add a BuildRequires on it to this package. (I like to pass -rs to %pytest when there are skipped tests, because this makes it easier for me to check if there are any that can be easily enabled.) - There is another set of tests that you can also run, by adding (immediately before or after the “%pytest …” line): %{py3_test_envvars} %{python3} ./jpltest.py They exist and you have everything you need to run them, so you might as well do so. ===== 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2485644-python-jplephem/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 t hese. [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. Test data files are always an area that has to be looked at closely for license issues. The JPL ephemeris files in the source are US government products and should be LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_works_of_u_s_government_employees These files aren’t shipped in the binary RPMs, and you don’t use a SourceLicense field, so there’s no need to change anything in the spec file, but documenting this analysis is an imprtant part of the package review, since we need to be sure that everything in the source RPM is distributable in Fedora. [-]: 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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1092 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]: 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 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. A direct link to the commit for 810ff57.patch would be nice, but the comment plus the commit hash in the filename constitute adequate documentation. [-]: 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. I forced a scratch-build to use all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146661124 Then I repeated the exercise with the suggested additional tests: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146661720 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. See the notes section; some additional tests could be run. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-jplephem-2.24-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-jplephem-2.24-1.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/tmpvekmx3zb')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-jplephem.src: E: spelling-error ('ephemeris', 'Summary(en_US) ephemeris -> hemispheric, hemispheres, hemisphere') python-jplephem.src: E: spelling-error ('ephemeris', '%description -l en_US ephemeris -> hemispheric, hemispheres, hemisphere') python-jplephem.src: E: spelling-error ('bsp', '%description -l en_US bsp -> bps, bap, tbsp') python3-jplephem.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ephemeris', 'Summary(en_US) ephemeris -> hemispheric, hemispheres, hemisphere') python3-jplephem.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ephemeris', '%description -l en_US ephemeris -> hemispheric, hemispheres, hemisphere') python3-jplephem.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bsp', '%description -l en_US bsp -> bps, bap, tbsp') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.7 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-jplephem.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ephemeris', 'Summary(en_US) ephemeris -> hemispheric, hemispheres, hemisphere') python3-jplephem.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ephemeris', '%description -l en_US ephemeris -> hemispheric, hemispheres, hemisphere') python3-jplephem.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bsp', '%description -l en_US bsp -> bps, bap, tbsp') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/brandon-rhodes/python-jplephem//archive/2.24/jplephem-2.24.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 952aa990b67cf00fcd4cfed571a41864ed649a4e53ee8020e7ad831276105dd8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 952aa990b67cf00fcd4cfed571a41864ed649a4e53ee8020e7ad831276105dd8 Requires -------- python3-jplephem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.15dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-jplephem: python-jplephem python3-jplephem python3.15-jplephem python3.15dist(jplephem) python3dist(jplephem) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2485644-python-jplephem/srpm/python-jplephem.spec 2026-06-14 19:35:05.847022852 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2485644-python-jplephem/srpm-unpacked/python-jplephem.spec 2026-06-05 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 + %global pypi_name jplephem @@ -63,3 +73,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Jun 05 2026 John Doe <packager> - 2.24-1 +- 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 2485644 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks, I'll look at your suggestions when importing the package since they look all reasonable. As for the DE421 package, I don't think to have immediate needing of it.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jplephem Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-45faa7293e (python-jplephem-2.24-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-45faa7293e
FEDORA-2026-45faa7293e (python-jplephem-2.24-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.