Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 1741624 (pydeps, python-pydeps)

Summary: Review Request: pydeps - Display module dependencies
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Luis Bazan <bazanluis20>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, sanjay.ankur, zbyszek
Target Milestone: ---Flags: sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-05-01 04:06:13 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 1741623    
Bug Blocks: 1276941    

Description Luis Bazan 2019-08-15 15:46:40 UTC

Python module dependency visualization. This package installs the pydeps
command, and normal usage will be to use it from the command line.


FAS: lbazan

Comment 1 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2019-08-16 06:53:53 UTC
I'd call the package simply pydeps. The executable seems the most important part.
It'd be nice to have the description say a bit more what pydeps does.

Comment 2 Luis Bazan 2019-08-16 17:48:59 UTC
Hi Zbyszek --

Ok let me fix the description


Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2020-02-12 19:12:11 UTC
Hi Luis,

Do you have an updated spec/srpm that I could review?


Comment 4 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2020-04-19 07:38:49 UTC
Hi Luis,

Any updates here?

Comment 5 Luis Bazan 2020-04-22 17:44:52 UTC
Hi team 

Name fixed
Test fixed
Cosmetics Fixed

Comment 6 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2020-04-22 19:01:15 UTC
Hrm, the build fails for me in mock:

WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox.
running egg_info
writing pydeps.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing dependency_links to pydeps.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to pydeps.egg-info/entry_points.txt
writing requirements to pydeps.egg-info/requires.txt
writing top-level names to pydeps.egg-info/top_level.txt
reading manifest file 'pydeps.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
writing manifest file 'pydeps.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "", line 36, in <module>
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/distutils/", line 148, in setup
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/distutils/", line 966, in run_commands
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/distutils/", line 985, in run_command
  File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/command/", line 238, in run
  File "", line 31, in run_tests
    import pytest
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pytest'

This is a missing BuildRequires here.

Comment 7 Luis Bazan 2020-04-22 19:46:34 UTC
Working on it!


Comment 8 Luis Bazan 2020-04-22 20:49:20 UTC
dependencies pyyaml and pytest

let me build again but its better disable the test after next release 1.9.0


Comment 9 Luis Bazan 2020-04-22 21:15:19 UTC
Hi team --


koji build --scratch rawhide pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm 
Uploading srpm: pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm
[====================================] 100% 00:00:01 109.30 KiB 106.83 KiB/sec
Created task: 43657268
Task info:
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm): free
43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm): free -> open (
  43657287 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open (
  43657287 rebuildSRPM (noarch): open ( -> closed
  0 free  1 open  1 done  0 failed
  43657418 buildArch (pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): free
  43657418 buildArch (pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): free -> open (
43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm): open ( -> closed
  0 free  1 open  2 done  0 failed
  43657418 buildArch (pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.src.rpm, noarch): open ( -> closed
  0 free  0 open  3 done  0 failed

43657268 build (rawhide, pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc32.src.rpm) completed successfully


Comment 10 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2020-04-23 08:12:32 UTC
Almost ready. Only a few tweaks, and perhaps enable tests (even if only
for mock?).

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
     "Expat License". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[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
[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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
I see you requested for 1.9.0 and upstream released it. Use that?

[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Since you are using the github archive which containts the tests, is there any
reason to not run them? If they require internet connectivity, perhaps use the
bcond_with system and at least test them on your system using mock with network

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: pydeps-1.8.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
pydeps.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pydeps
pydeps.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %check
pydeps.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
pydeps.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 7)
Cosmetic again: please use either spaces or tabs throughout the spec. I think
you may need to configure your editor to always use spaces, Luis?

pydeps.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 40: second Description
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Please remove the extra description. It isn't needed.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
pydeps.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
False positive.

pydeps.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pydeps
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a813d879c8a08bb1dad4bef7e5256eb01519532de7443fe0b8246effe9bccefd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a813d879c8a08bb1dad4bef7e5256eb01519532de7443fe0b8246effe9bccefd

pydeps (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1741624
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++

Comment 11 Luis Bazan 2020-04-23 14:11:20 UTC
Hi Ankur

Let me change the version to 1.9.0 has already been released.

Working on it!


Comment 12 Luis Bazan 2020-04-23 15:02:53 UTC
Hi Ankur

whitespace fixed
URL is ok
Issue was created in upstream to fix test
extra desc fixed



Comment 14 Luis Bazan 2020-04-23 16:38:41 UTC
test pass! Ok

Comment 15 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2020-04-23 16:40:38 UTC
Great, looks good! XXX APPROVED XXX

Comment 16 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-04-23 16:46:13 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2020-04-23 17:09:07 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2020-04-23 20:46:23 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:

See also for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2020-05-01 04:06:13 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7c6009f807 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.