Bug 2502852 - Review Request: python-magnumclient - Magnum API client library
Summary: Review Request: python-magnumclient - Magnum API client library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 2511009
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Steve Traylen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://launchpad.net/python-magnumcl...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-07-20 16:02 UTC by Luca Albrecht
Modified: 2026-08-04 14:30 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-08-04 13:58:36 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10757483 to 10806659 (1.40 KB, patch)
2026-08-03 07:59 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Luca Albrecht 2026-07-20 16:02:03 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/g3ntleli0n/python-magnumclient/srpm-builds/10752410/python-magnumclient.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/g3ntleli0n/python-magnumclient/srpm-builds/10752410/python-magnumclient-4.7.1-1.src.rpm
Description: This is a client library for Magnum built on the Magnum API. It provides a Python API (the magnumclient module) and a command-line tool (magnum).
Fedora Account System Username: g3ntleli0n

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-21 08:47:28 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10757483
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2502852-python-magnumclient/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10757483-python-magnumclient/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file AUTHORS is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-magnumclient
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 2 Steve Traylen 2026-07-28 14:49:56 UTC
I was just about to submit my own version of this

https://straylen.web.cern.ch/rpms/python-magnumclient/

I will of course review this one since you beat me to to it by a week :-)

Comment 3 Steve Traylen 2026-07-28 15:03:51 UTC
> %{!?sources_gpg: %{!?dlrn:%global sources_gpg 1} }

What is "dlrn" - when would this be set ?

> flake8-import-order  

has been excluded as a BR but it was never present in the first place ?

> BuildRequires:  pyproject-rpm-macros

This is not needed - it is already part of the koji buildroot for fedora  (and EPEL )

> sed -i /^minversion.*/d tox.ini

This is redundant really , there is no need to remove that constraint and it us useful moving forward.

> %if ! 0%{?with_doc}
> %global excluded_brs %{excluded_brs} sphinx openstackdocstheme
> %endif 

This is not needed , there is already a with_doc condition on the %tox macro and those deps are not included when `-e %{default_toxenv}` is used with docs.

Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2026-07-29 13:51:13 UTC
Why version 4.7 and not latest ?

Comment 5 Luca Albrecht 2026-08-03 07:51:56 UTC
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #3)
> > %{!?sources_gpg: %{!?dlrn:%global sources_gpg 1} }
> 
> What is "dlrn" - when would this be set ?
> 
> > flake8-import-order  
> 
> has been excluded as a BR but it was never present in the first place ?
> 
> > BuildRequires:  pyproject-rpm-macros
> 
> This is not needed - it is already part of the koji buildroot for fedora 
> (and EPEL )
> 
> > sed -i /^minversion.*/d tox.ini
> 
> This is redundant really , there is no need to remove that constraint and it
> us useful moving forward.
> 
> > %if ! 0%{?with_doc}
> > %global excluded_brs %{excluded_brs} sphinx openstackdocstheme
> > %endif 
> 
> This is not needed , there is already a with_doc condition on the %tox macro
> and those deps are not included when `-e %{default_toxenv}` is used with
> docs.

Hi Steve, thank you for reviewing my package review request and the valuable feedback.

I've took the existing rpm spec of when it was still maintained and present in Fedora (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-magnumclient/blob/18958c3b35f477c23468f4fcf6ed6006ddd6a378/f/python-magnumclient.spec), cleaned it up and updated it. It seems there are some unneeded leftovers. I'll gladly clean those up as well.

Comment 6 Luca Albrecht 2026-08-03 07:52:21 UTC
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #4)
> Why version 4.7 and not latest ?

Regarding the version: As I am currently using the copr repository to install the package on my client, I've built all versions up to the latest version 4.11.0 (4.7.1 just happens to be the first version that wasn't built and present in the fedora repository after the package had been orphaned).

The latest spec file as well as the latest srpm may be found here:
- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/g3ntleli0n/python-magnumclient/srpm-builds/10757698/python-magnumclient.spec
- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/g3ntleli0n/python-magnumclient/srpm-builds/10757698/python-magnumclient-4.11.0-1.src.rpm

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-03 07:59:57 UTC
Created attachment 2153377 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10757483 to 10806659

Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-03 07:59:59 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10806659
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2502852-python-magnumclient/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10806659-python-magnumclient/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file AUTHORS is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-magnumclient
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 9 Steve Traylen 2026-08-03 12:36:16 UTC
Hi Luca,

> I've took the existing rpm spec of when it was still maintained and present in Fedora 

This is a re-review so we are really starting again. Its as if the  package was new ? We can't just bring it back as it was.

Other points still stand:

* dlrn variables are never set in Fedora as far as I know so does not belong a a fedora spec file.
* flake8 is not a dependency anyway so why is it being removed?
* The minversion in tox.ini file is not undesirable - why is it being removed ?
* sphinx is not installed anyway when the doc tox env is used.

Most if not all the other openstack packages and now been adapted away from RDO which no longer exists, when this package was in F43 RDO still existed.

Steve.

Comment 10 Steve Traylen 2026-08-03 12:37:25 UTC
p.s I be greatful if openstack-sig could be added as a maintainer - I am happy to maintin in that context with the others I am doing: https://fedora-openstack.web.cern.ch/

Comment 11 Luca Albrecht 2026-08-03 14:48:07 UTC
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #9)
> Hi Luca,
> 
> > I've took the existing rpm spec of when it was still maintained and present in Fedora 
> 
> This is a re-review so we are really starting again. Its as if the  package
> was new ? We can't just bring it back as it was.
> 
> Other points still stand:
> 
> * dlrn variables are never set in Fedora as far as I know so does not belong
> a a fedora spec file.
> * flake8 is not a dependency anyway so why is it being removed?
> * The minversion in tox.ini file is not undesirable - why is it being
> removed ?
> * sphinx is not installed anyway when the doc tox env is used.
> 
> Most if not all the other openstack packages and now been adapted away from
> RDO which no longer exists, when this package was in F43 RDO still existed.
> 
> Steve.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your feedback. I have cleaned up the .spec file using your inputs and I have just built all the packages using the latest commit. The updated spec file may be found here:
- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/g3ntleli0n/python-magnumclient/fedora-44-x86_64/10807621-python-magnumclient/python-magnumclient.spec

Comment 12 Luca Albrecht 2026-08-03 14:49:21 UTC
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #10)
> p.s I be greatful if openstack-sig could be added as a maintainer - I am
> happy to maintin in that context with the others I am doing:
> https://fedora-openstack.web.cern.ch/

sure thing :)

Comment 13 Steve Traylen 2026-08-03 15:51:01 UTC
Okay.

If happy to give co-maintainership to openstack-sig like it had before then I can approve.

I may make some changes after but I will do that always via merge request so you will have opportunity to comment.

Steve.

Comment 14 Steve Traylen 2026-08-03 15:51:36 UTC
Approved.

Comment 15 Steve Traylen 2026-08-04 12:22:28 UTC
This is unapproved.

I had not realised you were not yet a packager.

I am happy to sponsor you but I cannot based on this package alone.

Comment 16 Steve Traylen 2026-08-04 12:25:34 UTC
To be a sponsoring review I have to be a lot stricter.

Please check all the build deps you are excluding , not just the flake8 ones there are others in that list.


The %check section does `|| true` this makes no sense or at least should be documented as to why.

Comment 17 Steve Traylen 2026-08-04 14:30:24 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2511009 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.