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 1878976 - Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to clients and servers
Summary: Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to c...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nils Philippsen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1854486
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2020-09-15 06:10 UTC by Aurelien Bompard
Modified: 2021-02-03 16:56 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2020-09-27 01:57:23 UTC
Type: ---
nphilipp: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Aurelien Bompard 2020-09-15 06:10:00 UTC
Spec URL:
bravado-core is a Python library that adds client-side and
server-side support for the OpenAPI Specification v2.0.

Fedora Account System Username: abompard

Expected rpmlint error: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bravado_core/py.typed
This is normal, as specified in PEP 561:

Comment 1 Nils Philippsen 2020-09-16 16:48:32 UTC
Package Review

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

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)

===== 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.
[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 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]: 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

[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python3-bravado-core-5.17.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python3-bravado-core.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bravado_core/py.typed
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b3b06ae86d3c80de5694340e55df7c9097857ff965b76642979e2a961f332abf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b3b06ae86d3c80de5694340e55df7c9097857ff965b76642979e2a961f332abf

python3-bravado-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L mockrepo -b 1878976
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, R, C/C++, fonts, Java

Built with local dependencies:

This package is APPROVED.

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-09-18 13:32:44 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2020-09-18 20:11:29 UTC
FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.

Comment 4 Miro Hrončok 2020-09-19 10:26:30 UTC
The package does not install at all on rawhide:

 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python3.9dist(jsonschema[format]) >= 2.5.1 needed by python3-bravado-core-5.17.0-1.fc34.noarch

The review template even says that:

(In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #1)
> Issues:
> =======
> - Package installs properly.
>   Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
>   See:


> This package is APPROVED.

I am confused :/

Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2020-09-19 10:32:51 UTC
A PR with the fix:

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-09-19 23:23:55 UTC
FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 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-2020-55391c26d2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:

See also for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 8 Miro Hrončok 2020-09-20 11:29:57 UTC
Side note: The f33 branch is missing entirely, but the package has been built in f34 and f32.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2020-09-27 01:57:23 UTC
FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Miro Hrončok 2021-02-03 16:56:09 UTC
The installation failure also impacts Fedora 32 except that it installs, but fails to function properly:

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