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 2138899 - Review Request: python-dunamai - Dynamic version generation
Summary: Review Request: python-dunamai - Dynamic version generation
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sandro
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Whiteboard: Trivial
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2022-10-31 15:49 UTC by Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
Modified: 2022-11-07 13:20 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2022-11-07 13:20:47 UTC
Type: ---
gui1ty: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-10-31 15:49:33 UTC
Spec URL:

Dunamai is a Python 3.5+ library and command line tool for producing dynamic,
standards-compliant version strings, derived from tags in your version control
system. This facilitates uniquely identifying nightly or per-commit builds in
continuous integration and releasing new versions of your software simply by
creating a tag.

Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha

Comment 1 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-10-31 15:49:35 UTC
This package built on koji:

Comment 2 Sandro 2022-10-31 21:32:30 UTC
LGTM: Approved!


=> for sake of consistency, I should probably ask you to remove '%license LICENSE' from the spec file ;-P

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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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 =====

[x]: 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).
[?]: 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 =====

[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

W: no-manual-page-for-binary dunamai
=> not provided by upstream, no action required

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 1

python3-dunamai.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dunamai
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e7cf5db42b27768819e54b94996219dd6570985d9854801400cc0637c37ad20f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e7cf5db42b27768819e54b94996219dd6570985d9854801400cc0637c37ad20f

python3-dunamai (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2138899
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell

Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-11-01 10:01:18 UTC
Thanks Sandro!

So, this is now a case where the pyproject macros don't pick up the LICENSE file---perhaps because it's not marked as such in the python setup metadata. So, we need to manually add the line. 

$ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./results_python-dunamai/1.13.2/2.fc38/python3-dunamai-1.13.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm

I do the build without the extra %license line first, then check to see if the license is included by the pyproject macros. If not, then I add an extra %license line.

Requesting SCM now.

Comment 4 Sandro 2022-11-01 10:33:06 UTC
> So, this is now a case where the pyproject macros don't pick up the LICENSE
> file---perhaps because it's not marked as such in the python setup metadata.
> So, we need to manually add the line. 
> $ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p
> ./results_python-dunamai/1.13.2/2.fc38/python3-dunamai-1.13.2-2.fc38.noarch.
> rpm
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-dunamai/LICENSE
> I do the build without the extra %license line first, then check to see if
> the license is included by the pyproject macros. If not, then I add an extra
> %license line.

That sounds like a hit and miss. Not my preferred approach, although not always avoidable. Looking at the project, I would actually expect the LICENSE file to be picked up and marked as such. It's a standard name in a standard location, so it should be correctly detected according to some PEP. Might be worth reporting this as a bug for pyproject-rpm-macros since you seem to rely on licenses being detected correctly.

But I guess I stick with my explicit and transparent %license macro. If that duplicates the license file, so be it.

Last but not least, since the LICENSE file is installed you could mark that instead: '%license %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}.dist-info/LICENSE'.

Comment 5 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2022-11-01 10:55:52 UTC
Yeh, there are multiple ways of "fixing" this, but I can't see myself inspecting each package to debug why the license file isn't being picked up---there are lots of PEPs and lots of build systems in the Python ecosystem now. No way I'll have time to learn them all and debug rpm macros.

So, best to do what works for you here. I just make sure there's a license file marked as such---automatically or explicitly.

(I don't see the license file mentioned in the pyproject.toml file. So I'd have expected it not to be picked up, but if it were picked up, I'd have expected it to be marked. So yeh, probably something worth reporting in pyproject rpm macros)

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-11-01 15:36:02 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

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