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 2192109 - Review Request: python-meson-python - Meson Python build backend (PEP 517)
Summary: Review Request: python-meson-python - Meson Python build backend (PEP 517)
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sandro
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-04-29 16:01 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2023-04-30 14:06 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-04-30 00:25:10 UTC
Type: ---
gui1ty: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2023-04-29 16:01:05 UTC
Spec URL:


meson-python is a Python build backend built on top of the Meson build system.
It enables to use Meson for the configuration and build steps of Python
packages. Meson is an open source build system meant to be both extremely fast,
and, even more importantly, as user friendly as possible. meson-python is best
suited for building Python packages containing extension modules implemented in
languages such as C, C++, Cython, Fortran, Pythran, or Rust. Consult the
documentation for more details.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:


F39 (explicitly building on all architectures):

Comment 1 Ben Beasley 2023-04-29 16:04:16 UTC
@gui1ty Interested in reviewing this for use with python-scikit-misc? And would you like to be a co-maintainer? I would be happy to have your help.

I intend to give neuro-sig and python-packagers-sig commit privileges on this package, since it is needed for NeuroFedora packages and is a Python build backend.

Comment 2 Sandro 2023-04-29 16:17:33 UTC
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #1)
> @gui1ty Interested in reviewing this for use with
> python-scikit-misc? And would you like to be a co-maintainer? I would be
> happy to have your help.

Sure. I'll do the review and I'm okay with co-maintaining once it's done.

Comment 3 Sandro 2023-04-29 21:39:44 UTC
I didn't find any issues => APPROVED

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.
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-04-30 00:12:11 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2023-04-30 00:24:33 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d9a431dc7f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-04-30 00:25:10 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d9a431dc7f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2023-04-30 05:24:40 UTC
FEDORA-2023-e5bcfd72a8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-04-30 14:06:37 UTC
FEDORA-2023-d2a51f2737 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.

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