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 2077429

Summary: Review Request: python-lazy-loader - Populate library namespace without incurring immediate import costs
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ben Beasley <code>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: mark.e.fuller, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: mark.e.fuller: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: Trivial
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-04-30 15:13:56 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, 2076089    

Description Ben Beasley 2022-04-21 11:19:30 UTC
Spec URL:

lazy-loader makes it easy to load subpackages and functions on demand.


• Allow subpackages to be made visible to users without incurring import costs.
• Allow external libraries to be imported only when used, improving import

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:


This is a new dependency for python-pandas-flavor 0.3.0. The neuro-sig group will be given commit access.

Comment 1 Ben Beasley 2022-04-21 11:28:07 UTC
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #0)
> F34:

That scratch build failed due to flit-core being too old. F34 is nearly at end-of-life anyway, so I will only package for F35 and later.

Comment 2 Mark E. Fuller 2022-04-23 19:35:59 UTC
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text

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]: 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". 9 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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

[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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.

Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 20047252ab9afbc77cd54f5a4672a9ad5e01017197eb4dc37b8878d35e85b35f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20047252ab9afbc77cd54f5a4672a9ad5e01017197eb4dc37b8878d35e85b35f

python3-lazy-loader (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2077429
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, PHP



Checking: python3-lazy-loader-0.1~rc2-1.fc37.noarch.rpm

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2022-04-24 00:03:03 UTC
Thank you for the review.

I see that you assigned the review to yourself and set the fedora-review flag to “?”, so I am setting the Status to ASSIGNED as well. Is there anything else you want to discuss or investigate, or are you ready to approve the package by setting the fedora-review flag to “+”?


Comment 4 Mark E. Fuller 2022-04-24 07:01:26 UTC
Nothing to discuss, just wanted to take a second look after a day before I approve to make sure I didn't miss anything/didn't rush through it

Comment 5 Ben Beasley 2022-04-24 12:23:43 UTC
(In reply to Mark E. Fuller from comment #4)
> Nothing to discuss, just wanted to take a second look after a day before I
> approve to make sure I didn't miss anything/didn't rush through it

Sounds good! Please take all the time you need.

Comment 6 Mark E. Fuller 2022-04-24 20:52:56 UTC
Approved - thank you for submitting the package

Comment 7 Ben Beasley 2022-04-25 11:09:36 UTC
Thank you for the review! Repository requested:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-04-25 17:16:06 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-04-30 15:12:38 UTC
FEDORA-2022-aabd425c0b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-04-30 15:13:56 UTC
FEDORA-2022-aabd425c0b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-05-31 20:23:22 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1f2c737954 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-06-01 03:10:54 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1f2c737954 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:

See also for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-06-09 00:41:49 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1f2c737954 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.