Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python-parallel-web.spec SRPM URL: https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python-parallel-web-0.4.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: The Parallel Python library provides convenient access to the Parallel REST API from any Python 3.9+ application. The library includes type definitions for all request params and response fields, and offers both synchronous and asynchronous clients powered by httpx. The REST API documentation can be found on docs.parallel.ai. The full API of this library can be found in api.md. Fedora Account System Username: cqi
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10621515 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2491132-python-parallel-web/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10621515-python-parallel-web/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.
Instead of creating a patch to relax requirements, you can use: %prep ,,, %pyproject_patch_dependency hatchling:drop_upper For the documentation see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/README.md Or you can use 'pyp2spec --declarative-buildsystem parallel_web' to generate the spec file with declarative macros. This is just a recommendation; the use of a patch is correct as well. On the same page you can check the "Provisional: Declarative Buildsystem (RPM 4.20+)" that can significantly simplify the spec file. Is there a reason to NOT package aiohttp subpackage? If there are deps missing, I would like to see a comment that describes what is missing. This is blocking question for the review. Besides that, I found no other issue.
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2) > Instead of creating a patch to relax requirements, you can use: > > %prep > ,,, > %pyproject_patch_dependency hatchling:drop_upper Fixed by using this. > > Is there a reason to NOT package aiohttp subpackage? If there are deps > missing, I would like to see a comment that describes what is missing. > This is blocking question for the review. > Added a comment in the SPEC. Thanks for your review. PTAL.
Hi Miroslav, PTAL when you get a chance. Thanks.
> # Do not build this subpackage for now due to httpx-aiohttp is missing. I see it available: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-httpx-aiohttp/python3-httpx-aiohttp/
Hi Miroslav, the SPEC is updated and now the subpackage is packaged. PTAL.
It is a good habit to add a comment link to updated files. I.e. Spec URL: https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python-parallel-web.spec SRPM URL: https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python-parallel-web-0.4.2-1.fc45.src.rpm
Hmm and that spec file and content of the srpm is not the same. Can **you** please provide the up to date links please?
Hi Miroslav, Rebuilt the package. Here are the updated files. PTAL. SPEC URL: https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python-parallel-web.spec SPEC URL: https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python-parallel-web-0.4.2-1.fc46.src.rpm
> SPEC URL: > https://cqi.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packages/python-parallel-web/python- > parallel-web-0.4.2-1.fc46.src.rpm s/SPEC URL/SRPM URL/
> W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/parallel/lib/.keep This is nitpick and I will not block on this, but you should remove this. Likely in %install section. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 43189 bytes in 5 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. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-parallel-web , python3-parallel-web+aiohttp [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. APPROVED