Bug 2525617 - Review Request: python-hatch-mypyc - Hatch build hook plugin for Mypyc
Summary: Review Request: python-hatch-mypyc - Hatch build hook plugin for Mypyc
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/ofek/hatch-mypyc
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2461259
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-08-28 14:55 UTC by Gwyn Ciesla
Modified: 2026-09-01 21:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-09-01 21:42:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Gwyn Ciesla 2026-08-28 14:55:33 UTC
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-hatch-mypyc/python-hatch-mypyc-0.16.0-1.fc46.src.rpm
SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-hatch-mypyc/python-hatch-mypyc.spec

Description:
This provides a build hook plugin for Hatch that compiles code with Mypyc

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-28 14:59:22 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10915673
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2525617-python-hatch-mypyc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10915673-python-hatch-mypyc/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.

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2026-08-29 06:58:32 UTC
I investigated packaging this a while ago and ended up not needing it. It turns out you actually can run most of the tests. From the spec file I still had lying around:

# Run tests that would require network access? We cannot do so in Koji, but we
# can use something like
#   fedpkg mockbuild --enable-network --with network_tests
# to try out these tests locally.
%bcond network_tests 0

[…]

# See [envs.default.dependencies] in hatch.toml. We don’t need everything from
# that list.
%if %{with network_tests}
BuildRequires:  gcc
%endif
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pytest}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist packaging}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist build[virtualenv]}

[…]

%if %{without network_tests}
# All of these require network access.
ignore="${ignore-} --ignore=tests/test_build.py"
ignore="${ignore-} --ignore=tests/test_clean.py"
%else
# Upstream expects a wheel name like:
#   my_app-1.2.3-cp314-cp314-manylinux_2_43_x86_64.whl
# but we get something like:
#   my_app-1.2.3-cp314-cp314-linux_x86_64.whl
# which is not incorrect; the discrepancy is an artifact of the RPM build
# environment, and the tests work in a git checkout. It makes more sense to
# skip these tests than to try to get upstream to support our environment.
k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_no_exclusion"
k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_exclusion"
k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_separation"
k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_src_layout"
k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_dependency"
k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_build_dir"
%endif

# Similarly, the following tests work in a git checkout, but in our environment
# we get:
# E       ValueError: Unable to determine which files to ship inside the wheel
# E       using the following heuristics:
# E       https://hatch.pypa.io/latest/plugins/builder/wheel/#default-file-selection
# E       
# E       The most likely cause of this is that there is no directory that
# E        matches the name of your project (my_app).
# This does not seem worth chasing down.
k="${k-}${k+ and }not (TestPatternMatching and test_default_exclude)"
k="${k-}${k+ and }not (TestPatternMatching and test_exclude)"

%pytest -k "${k-}" ${ignore-} -v

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2026-08-31 19:38:45 UTC
Ooh, thank you! I switched to the github tarball and this worked.

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2026-09-01 06:20:30 UTC
I went ahead and reviewed the original submission and found that it could be
approved as-is. Please note the missing period at the end of the description,
and please do enable tests as we discussed. Nothing about switching to the
GitHub source should require packaging changes in this particular case, so I
don’t feel the need to actually review that part.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== Issues =====

- Please enable tests where you can, as discussed in
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2525617#c2.

- Please add a period at the end of the description text.

===== Notes (no change required for approval) =====

- The manual BuildRequires: python3-devel is not required when using
  %pyproject_buildrequires, so you could remove that line if you like. See
  https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/guidelines/pulls/1565,
  https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1379/, and
  https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1384/. Leaving it in is
  not wrong and does no harm.


===== 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2525617-python-hatch-
     mypyc/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 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.
[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 6366 bytes in 2 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.

     The package passes an import-only smoke test; applicable tests reportedly
     work once the necessary modifications are made to the spec file; and I was
     able to actually build things with a similar package that I never
     submitted in the past, so there aren’t any serious “gotchas” that need to
     be dealt with here.

[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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149737089

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Many tests can be enabled:
     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2525617#c2

[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)

     OK: differences are solely due to rpmautospec macro expansion.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-hatch-mypyc-0.16.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm
          python-hatch-mypyc-0.16.0-1.fc46.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/tmpf0p8cirw')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
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: 33, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hatch_mypyc/hatch_mypyc-0.16.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6e3aa99634d81142cab993358698eaae823de91fe87ee85029a82f2e737c3ded
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e3aa99634d81142cab993358698eaae823de91fe87ee85029a82f2e737c3ded


Requires
--------
python3-hatch-mypyc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.15dist(hatchling)
    python3.15dist(mypy)
    python3.15dist(pathspec)
    python3.15dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-hatch-mypyc:
    python-hatch-mypyc
    python3-hatch-mypyc
    python3.15-hatch-mypyc
    python3.15dist(hatch-mypyc)
    python3dist(hatch-mypyc)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ben/fedora/review/2525617-python-hatch-mypyc/srpm/python-hatch-mypyc.spec	2026-09-01 06:46:11.035741965 +0100
+++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2525617-python-hatch-mypyc/srpm-unpacked/python-hatch-mypyc.spec	2026-08-28 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-hatch-mypyc
 Version:        0.16.0
@@ -48,3 +58,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Fri Aug 28 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.16.0-1
+- 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 2525617
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Java, R, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 5 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-09-01 20:29:35 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hatch-mypyc
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2026-09-01 20:37:45 UTC
Thank you!


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