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 2005667 - Review Request: python-versioningit - Versioning It with your Version In Git
Summary: Review Request: python-versioningit - Versioning It with your Version In Git
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-09-19 10:50 UTC by Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
Modified: 2021-09-24 20:30 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-09-24 20:30:56 UTC
Type: ---
code: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Candidate man page (deleted)
2021-09-19 15:02 UTC, Ben Beasley
no flags Details

Description Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2021-09-19 10:50:39 UTC
Spec URL:

versioningit is yet another setuptools plugin for automatically determining
your package's version based on your version control repository's tags. Unlike
others, it allows easy customization of the version format and even lets you
easily override the separate functions used for version extraction &


- Installed & configured through PEP 518's pyproject.toml
- Supports Git, modern Git archives, and Mercurial
- Formatting of the final version uses format template strings, with fields for
  basic VCS information and separate template strings for distanced vs. dirty
  vs. distanced-and-dirty repository states
- Can optionally write the final version to a file for loading at runtime
- The individual methods for VCS querying, tag-to-version calculation, version
  bumping, version formatting, and writing the version to a file can all be
  customized using either functions defined alongside one’s project code or via
  publicly-distributed entry points
- Can alternatively be used as a library for use in or the like, in
  case you don’t want to or can’t configure it via pyproject.toml
- The only thing it does is calculate your version and optionally write it to a
  file; there's no overriding of your sdist contents based on what is in your
  Git repository, especially not without a way to turn it off, because that
  would just be rude.

Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha

Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2021-09-19 10:50:42 UTC
This package built on koji:

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2021-09-19 15:01:05 UTC
This package is approved, but please see the comments below:

Package Review

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

- Dist tag is present.

  (fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec)

- A man page is always desired for a command-line tool:

    python3-versioningit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary versioningit

  Would you be willing to maintain a simple downstream man page in groff_man(7)
  format if I contribute it?

  (This is not required for approval.)

Notes (no change required):

- Consider whether adding weak dependencies on the VCS tools that the library
  calls would make sense:

    Recommends:     git-core
    Recommends:     mercurial

  I think you could reasonably justify adding these or leaving them out.

===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2005667-python-
[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 51200 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]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
     (tests pass)
[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
[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 =====

[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: python3-versioningit-0.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
python3-versioningit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Versioning -> Versifying, Version, Overseeing
python3-versioningit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools
python3-versioningit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyproject -> projector, project
python3-versioningit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toml -> tom, tome, toms
python3-versioningit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdist -> dist, sadist, s dist
python3-versioningit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary versioningit
python-versioningit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Versioning -> Versifying, Version, Overseeing
python-versioningit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuptools -> setup tools, setup-tools, toadstools
python-versioningit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyproject -> projector, project
python-versioningit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toml -> tom, tome, toms
python-versioningit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdist -> dist, sadist, s dist
python-versioningit.src:87: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e045f6fd6f581864aa3a8a14443515df4e4b1d85705642946be7a2ef6afa830b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e045f6fd6f581864aa3a8a14443515df4e4b1d85705642946be7a2ef6afa830b

python3-versioningit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.10dist(tomli) >= 1.2 with python3.10dist(tomli) < 2)


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005667
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, R

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2021-09-19 15:02:15 UTC
Created attachment 1824381 [details]
Candidate man page

A simple man page in groff_man(7) format that could be used for this package

Comment 4 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2021-09-19 15:16:26 UTC
Thanks for the review!

Sure, I'll carry the man page, and see if I can send it upstream later too. I'll make the other tweaks before import.

Requesting SCM now.


Comment 5 Igor Raits 2021-09-20 11:56:51 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2021-09-20 13:00:00 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1572693cb6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2021-09-20 20:54:46 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1572693cb6 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-2021-1572693cb6 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:

See also for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2021-09-24 20:30:56 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1572693cb6 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

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