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 2109250 - Review Request: python-yte - YAML template engine with Python expressions
Summary: Review Request: python-yte - YAML template engine with Python expressions
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 2107915
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora 2039280
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2022-07-20 18:47 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2022-07-26 22:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2022-07-26 22:47:05 UTC
Type: ---
sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2022-07-20 18:47:10 UTC
Spec URL:

YTE is a template engine for YAML format that utilizes the YAML structure in
combination with Python expressions for enabling to dynamically build YAML

The key idea of YTE is to rely on the YAML structure to enable conditionals,
loops and other arbitrary Python expressions to dynamically render YAML files.
Python expressions are thereby declared by prepending them with a ? anywhere in
the YAML. Any such value will be automatically evaluated by YTE, yielding plain
YAML as a result. Importantly, YTE templates are still valid YAML files (for
YAML, the ? expressions are just strings).

Documentation of YTE can be found at

Fedora Account System Username: music

COPR build:

This is a dependency for updating snakemake to 7.x.

Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-07-25 16:54:59 UTC
looks good, XXX APPROVED XXX

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 14 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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.
[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 =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed

This is fine, it's because python-plac needs to be imported first.

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

Installation errors
INFO: version 3.0 starting (python version = 3.10.5, NVR = mock-3.0-1.fc36)...
Start(bootstrap): init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish(bootstrap): init plugins
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start(bootstrap): chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata
Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 3.0
INFO: Mock Version: 3.0
Finish(bootstrap): chroot init
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: 3.0
INFO: Mock Version: 3.0
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/python3-yte-1.5.1-1.fc37.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 37 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/python3-yte-1.5.1-1.fc37.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

This is fine, it's because python-plac needs to be imported first.

Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Run manually

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bb866a1f8fc93248a2a12d9bb86fb45edd0930e9656dc7b7785ff094b7c74301
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb866a1f8fc93248a2a12d9bb86fb45edd0930e9656dc7b7785ff094b7c74301

python3-yte (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.11dist(dpath) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(dpath) >= 2)
    (python3.11dist(plac) < 2~~ with python3.11dist(plac) >= 1.3.4)
    (python3.11dist(pyyaml) < 7~~ with python3.11dist(pyyaml) >= 6)


Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2109250
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Java

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2022-07-25 16:57:02 UTC
Thanks for the review! Repository requested:

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-07-25 17:48:57 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2022-07-26 22:46:21 UTC
FEDORA-2022-c37e7eb776 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2022-07-26 22:47:05 UTC
FEDORA-2022-c37e7eb776 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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.