Weird that it built in Koji, since it fails to build in mock for me. Looks like it’s missing a BR on python3dist(pep517).

The following is excerpted from the output of “fedora-review -b 1910392”:

+ /usr/bin/pytest -v tests -k 'not test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip and not test_build_isolated   and not test_build_no_isolation_check_deps_empty and not test_build_no_isolation_with_check_deps   and not test_build_raises_build_exception and not test_build_raises_build_backend_exception' --ignore tests/test_projectbuilder.py
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.9.1, pytest-6.0.2, py-1.10.0, pluggy-0.13.1 -- /usr/bin/python3
cachedir: .pytest_cache
rootdir: /builddir/build/BUILD/build-0.1.0, configfile: setup.cfg
plugins: forked-1.3.0, xdist-2.2.0, cov-2.10.1, mock-3.4.0
collecting ... collected 0 items / 4 errors
==================================== ERRORS ====================================
______________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_env.py ______________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/build-0.1.0/tests/test_env.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/usr/lib64/python3.9/importlib/__init__.py:127: in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
tests/test_env.py:12: in <module>
    import build.env
../../BUILDROOT/python-build-0.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/build/__init__.py:16: in <module>
    import pep517.wrappers
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pep517'
__________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_integration.py __________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/build-0.1.0/tests/test_integration.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/usr/lib64/python3.9/importlib/__init__.py:127: in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
tests/test_integration.py:16: in <module>
    import filelock
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'filelock'
_____________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_main.py ______________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/build-0.1.0/tests/test_main.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/usr/lib64/python3.9/importlib/__init__.py:127: in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
tests/test_main.py:10: in <module>
    import build
../../BUILDROOT/python-build-0.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/build/__init__.py:16: in <module>
    import pep517.wrappers
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pep517'
____________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_module.py _____________________
ImportError while importing test module '/builddir/build/BUILD/build-0.1.0/tests/test_module.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/usr/lib64/python3.9/importlib/__init__.py:127: in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
tests/test_module.py:3: in <module>
    import build
../../BUILDROOT/python-build-0.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/build/__init__.py:16: in <module>
    import pep517.wrappers
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pep517'
=========================== short test summary info ============================
ERROR tests/test_env.py
ERROR tests/test_integration.py
ERROR tests/test_main.py
ERROR tests/test_module.py
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interrupted: 4 errors during collection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
============================== 4 errors in 0.32s ===============================
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.zWPJDu (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.zWPJDu (%check)

This would be a great candidate for using generated BR’s:

-----

%package -n     python3-%{pypi_name}
Summary:        %{summary}

BuildRequires:  python3-devel
BuildRequires:  python3dist(setuptools)
BuildRequires:  pyproject-rpm-macros

%description -n python3-%{pypi_name}
build will invoke the PEP 517 hooks to build a distribution package. It is a
simple build tool and does not perform any dependency management.

%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires -x test

%prep

-----

It saves you the trouble of manually enumerating, and possibly missing, BR’s (and re-doing it for every upstream update), and it automatically puts in version requirements too.

See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for more.

For the typing extra, this should have:

%{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{pypi_name} -i %{python3_sitelib}/*.egg-info typing}

Details at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_python_extras.

(In reply to code from comment #2)
> This would be a great candidate for using generated BR’s:
> 
> %generate_buildrequires
> %pyproject_buildrequires -x test
> 
> %prep
> 
> -----
> 
> It saves you the trouble of manually enumerating, and possibly missing, BR’s
> (and re-doing it for every upstream update), and it automatically puts in
> version requirements too.
> 
> See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for more.

Changed

(In reply to code from comment #3)
> For the typing extra, this should have:
> 
> %{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{pypi_name} -i
> %{python3_sitelib}/*.egg-info typing}
> 
> Details at
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_python_extras.

Added

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60540015

%changelog
* Sun Jan 24 2021 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.1.0-2
- Switch to pyproject-rpm-macros (#1910392)

Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-build.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-build-0.1.0-2.fc33.src.rpm

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

  The actual error looks like:
  Error:
   Problem: conflicting requests
     - nothing provides python3.9dist(mypy) = 0.790 needed by python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch

  This is because the typing extension requires mypy==0.790. Consider something
  like this in %prep:

    # Loosen exact-version mypy requirement for typing extra:
    sed -r -i 's/(mypy)==/\1>=/' setup.cfg

  Note that only Fedora 34 provides a mypy >= 0.790. If you want to package for
  older Fedoras, you need to lower or eliminate the minimum version and then
  test it. For example:

    # Drop exact-version mypy requirement for typing extra
    sed -r -i 's/(mypy)==.*/\1/' setup.cfg

  If you do that (and maybe if you don’t) you could change 
    %pyproject_buildrequires -x test
  to
    %pyproject_buildrequires -x test,typing
  and then, in %check:

    %{python3} -m mypy %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/{pypi_name}

  to verify it works as expected.

- Once you do the above, you will get an error from mypy like:

    Module 'importlib' has no attribute 'metadata'

  I have filed an upstream bug https://github.com/pypa/build/issues/211 and
  attached a patch corresponding to my accepted PR
  https://github.com/pypa/build/pull/213.

- You can build the docs even without the furo theme.
    %pyproject_buildrequires -x test,typing,doc
  and in %prep,
    # Build docs with alternative theme since python-furo is not packaged
    # (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910798):
    sed -r -i "s/(html_theme[[:blank:]]*=[[:blank:]]*['])furo'/\1alabaster'/" \
        docs/source/conf.py
    sed -r -i '/^[[:blank:]]*furo[[:blank:]]*$/d' \
        setup.cfg docs/requirements.txt
  then add the appropriate -doc subpackage.

- The %python_provides macro is obsolete. Remove it entirely; or, if you are
  packaging for Fedora 32, you may replace it with:

    # Obsolete after Fedora 32 EOL:
    %py_provides python3-%{pypi_name}

  See:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro

  EPEL does need python_provides, but lacks support for the
  pyproject-rpm-macros, so I know you are not targeting it with this spec file.

- You should run the test suite by adding the following under the %check section:

    %tox

  For the generated BR’s, you will now need:

    %pyproject_buildrequires -t -x typing,doc

  to get the BR’s from the tox configuration, and to include tox itself.

  You will have to skip one test. I am honestly not sure what is going on here.

    # _________________ test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip __________________
    # [gw2] linux -- Python 3.9.1 /usr/bin/python3
    # 
    # tmp_path = PosixPath('/tmp/pytest-of-mockbuild/pytest-0/popen-gw2/test_create_isolated_build_hos0')
    # capfd = <_pytest.capture.CaptureFixture object at 0x7fea79428670>
    # mocker = <pytest_mock.plugin.MockerFixture object at 0x7fea79428490>
    # 
    #     @pytest.mark.isolated
    #     def test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip(tmp_path, capfd, mocker):
    #         mocker.patch.object(build.env, 'pip', None)
    #         expected = {'pip', 'greenlet', 'readline', 'cffi'} if platform.python_implementation() == 'PyPy' else {'pip'}
    # 
    #         with build.env.IsolatedEnvBuilder() as isolated_env:
    #             cmd = [isolated_env.executable, '-m', 'pip', 'list', '--format', 'json']
    #             packages = {p['name'] for p in json.loads(subprocess.check_output(cmd, universal_newlines=True))}
    # >           assert packages == expected
    # E           AssertionError: assert {'build', 'pip'} == {'pip'}
    # E             Extra items in the left set:
    # E             'build'
    # E             Use -v to get the full diff
    # 
    # tests/test_env.py:57: AssertionError
    export PYTEST_ADDOPTS='-k "not test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip"'

===== 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", "*No copyright* Expat License". 37
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
     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]: 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.

     (However, there is more documentation that *could* be built.)

[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     (except as otherwise noted)

[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
     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]: 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

     (except as otherwise noted)

[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-build , python3-build+typing
[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
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.8 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR = mock-2.8-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.8
INFO: Mock Version: 2.8
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
python3-build.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/build/py.typed
python3-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyproject-build
python3-build+typing.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage
python3-build+typing.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage
python3-build+typing.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pypa/build/archive/0.1.0/build-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : caec66a086a3fdad0c03b36ea82598c071b5c1a98c20d499ef9ae81540ff2463
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : caec66a086a3fdad0c03b36ea82598c071b5c1a98c20d499ef9ae81540ff2463


Requires
--------
python3-build (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(packaging)
    python3.9dist(pep517)
    python3.9dist(setuptools)
    python3.9dist(toml)

python3-build+typing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-build
    python3.9dist(mypy)
    python3.9dist(setuptools)
    python3.9dist(typing-extensions)



Provides
--------
python3-build:
    python-build
    python3-build
    python3.9-build
    python3.9dist(build)
    python3dist(build)

python3-build+typing:
    python-build+typing
    python3-build+typing
    python3.9-build+typing
    python3.9dist(build[typing])
    python3dist(build[typing])



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1910392
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Created attachment 1751327 [details]
Spec file demonstrating review suggestions

This spec file should implement all of the suggestions from the review. Feel free to use it, or do things your own way.

Created attachment 1751328 [details]
python-build-0.1.0-mypy-importlib-metadata.patch

Patch for mypy/typing issue

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires -x test

%build
%py3_build

%install
%py3_install


Note that mixing %pyproject_buildrequires with %py3_build/%py3_install is generally not a supported way of building Python packages. Please, either use the "old" macros, or the "new", described in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros

Are you still planning to package this?

Hello, Fabian.

I'd like to package this tool to Fedora. If you are no longer interested in this review, could you please close it? I'll then open a new one.

You can see my progress in: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lbalhar/build/builds/

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews?rd=Extras/Policy/StalledReviews#Submitter_not_responding

> When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one month

Last "response" is 2021-02-27.

> a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is stalled and that a response is needed soon.

That was technically at 2021-06-11.

> If there is no response within one week, the ticket is closed

We are there. I won't close this just yet, but Lumír if you sumbit another review request for this, feel free to mark this one as a duplicate.

Thanks, Miro! My review request is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976483

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1976483 ***

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days