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 2036519

Summary: Review Request: python-pooch - A friend to fetch your data files
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, sanjay.ankur
Target Milestone: ---Flags: sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-01-19 01:53:36 UTC Type: ---
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:    
Bug Blocks: 1276941    

Description Vanessa Christopher 2022-01-02 19:21:55 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Pooch manages your Python library's sample data files: it automatically downloads and stores them in a local directory, with support for versioning and corruption checks.
Fedora Account System Username: vanessakris

Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-01-03 14:41:38 UTC
Looks good, let's just see if we can get the tests working and then I'll do a full review.

Comment 2 Vanessa Christopher 2022-01-04 06:38:54 UTC
Spec URL:

Hello @sanjay.ankur 
Here is the update for the new build

Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-01-04 10:34:05 UTC
Great. Since it seems to require pytest even when we run the import checks:

Check import: pooch.tests.test_core
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/", line 171, in <module>
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/", line 167, in main
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/", line 100, in import_modules
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.10/importlib/", line 126, in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1050, in _gcd_import
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1027, in _find_and_load
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1006, in _find_and_load_unlocked
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 688, in _load_unlocked
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap_external>", line 883, in exec_module
  File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 241, in _call_with_frames_removed
  File "/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-pooch-1.5.2-5.fc36.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pooch/tests/", line 16, in <module>
    import pytest
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pytest'


we'll BuildRequires pytest even outside the network conditional. Opened a PR for you now. Once you merge that, I'll put fedora-review to work.

Comment 5 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-01-05 18:22:21 UTC

Package Review

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

- Dist tag is present.
Using rpmauto spec, so we're fine.

===== 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]: 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 3-Clause License", "MIT License
     BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]". 32
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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 40960 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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
Tested with the import check

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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 =====

[!]: 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)
because of rpmautospec, so it's fine.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


(ins)[asinha@ankur  2036519-python-pooch]$ rpmlint results/*rpm -v
python3-pooch.noarch: E: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pooch/tests/data/
python3-pooch.noarch: E: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pooch/tests/data/
The zip file is not compressed.

This is how upstream provides these files, so there's not much we can do.

python-pooch.src: W: strange-permission python-pooch.spec 600
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

^ Can be ignored

python3-pooch.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pooch/tests/data/tiny-data.txt /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pooch/tests/data/store/subdir/tiny-data.txt:/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pooch/tests/data/store/tiny-data.txt

It's how upstream provides these files, so nothing to do here.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5969b2f1defbdc405df932767e05e0b536e2771c27f1f95d7f260bc99bf13581
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5969b2f1defbdc405df932767e05e0b536e2771c27f1f95d7f260bc99bf13581

python3-pooch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
--- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2036519-python-pooch/srpm/python-pooch.spec	2022-01-05 18:09:48.074546120 +0000
+++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2036519-python-pooch/srpm-unpacked/python-pooch.spec	2022-01-05 17:02:20.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 5;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
 # Tests require network so disabled by default
 # To run locally, use: fedpkg mockbuild --enable-network --with=network
@@ -61,3 +70,16 @@
+* Wed Jan 05 2022 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1> 1.5.2-5
+- Uncommitted changes
+* Tue Jan 04 2022 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1> 1.5.2-4
+- Minor tweaks
+* Mon Jan 03 2022 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> 1.5.2-3
+- feat: remove duplicate files
+* Mon Jan 03 2022 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> 1.5.2-2
+- feat: set up for network dependent tests
+* Sun Jan 02 2022 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1> 1.5.2-1
+- initial build

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2036519
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-01-05 19:54:12 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-01-10 10:43:30 UTC
FEDORA-2022-30eb4fb9b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-01-10 10:43:33 UTC
FEDORA-2022-43d04fe879 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-01-11 01:34:21 UTC
FEDORA-2022-43d04fe879 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-43d04fe879 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:

See also for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-01-11 01:44:31 UTC
FEDORA-2022-30eb4fb9b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-30eb4fb9b4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:

See also for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-01-19 01:53:36 UTC
FEDORA-2022-43d04fe879 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-01-19 02:10:37 UTC
FEDORA-2022-30eb4fb9b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.