I was just looking at this review request as well. It seems we are at each other's tail this morning FranciscoD_. ;-)

I'll leave the review to you. But I have a question regarding the Versioneer foo applied in the spec file:

Is this package specific? If so, what does the package do with/to Versioneer that makes it necessary to have an elaborate bcond in the spec file? If not, is this what we are doomed to apply to every package using Versioneer? I hope not, since Versioneer is a pain as it is and this would be like a salty bandaid on top.

This package at least has an up to date versioneer.py (0.28). That should work across all branches. Why bother with the system provided version at all?

LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX

The only thing worth noting is that upstream has made a new 0.5.4 release. Please update during import.


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

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



===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2221739-python-
     pymapvbvd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-
     packages
^
odd: should be owned by the py3.12 packages

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12,
     /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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 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
[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]: Package functions as described.
^
tests pass

[!]: Latest version is packaged.
^
upstream released 0.5.4 a few days after 0.5.3. Please update before import.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pymapvbvd-0.5.3-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-pymapvbvd-0.5.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
=========================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==========================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxqbx_hz7')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-pymapvbvd.src: W: strange-permission get_test_data.sh 775
python-pymapvbvd.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: pyMapVBVD-0.5.3-test-data.tar.xz
============================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.6 s ===========================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyMapVBVD/pyMapVBVD-0.5.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b34abbada1ee2512176818e912f1238a8fff8679fc938eb38fe8d60a8d3401f0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b34abbada1ee2512176818e912f1238a8fff8679fc938eb38fe8d60a8d3401f0


Requires
--------
python3-pymapvbvd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(h5py)
    python3.12dist(matplotlib)
    python3.12dist(numpy)
    python3.12dist(scipy)
    python3.12dist(six)
    python3.12dist(tqdm)



Provides
--------
python3-pymapvbvd:
    python-mapvbvd
    python-pymapvbvd
    python3-mapvbvd
    python3-pymapvbvd
    python3.12-mapvbvd
    python3.12-pymapvbvd
    python3.12dist(pymapvbvd)
    python3dist(pymapvbvd)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221739
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Sandro from comment #1)
> But I have a question regarding the Versioneer
> foo applied in the spec file:
> 
> Is this package specific? If so, what does the package do with/to Versioneer
> that makes it necessary to have an elaborate bcond in the spec file? If not,
> is this what we are doomed to apply to every package using Versioneer? I
> hope not, since Versioneer is a pain as it is and this would be like a salty
> bandaid on top.

It *is* package specific, in that:

  - the __init__.py calls a function “get_version” from the generated _version.py: https://github.com/wtclarke/pymapvbvd/blob/0.5.4/mapvbvd/__init__.py#L2-L3
  - only recent versions of versioneer generate a _version.py with that function
  - most packages don’t use “get_version”
  - most packages don’t require versioneer at all when building from the PyPI sdist
  - the fact that “export PYTHONPATH="${PWD}"” is required to use the bundled versioneer is weird, and this is the first time I‘ve seen it

In Rawhide, I wanted to use the system versioneer because the package supports it—but I couldn’t do this in older Fedora releases or EPEL9 because the system versioneer was too old. (As noted, this is the first package I have ever found that cares about the version of versioneer!) After importing the package, I intend to remove the conditional and let the git branches diverge, which will make the spec file less messy-looking.

It really seems like almost every versioneer-using package manages to find a slightly idiosyncratic way to do it.

> This package at least has an up to date versioneer.py (0.28). That should
> work across all branches. Why bother with the system provided version at all?

Basically, I was optimizing for Rawhide, which can get by with just “rm -v versioneer.py” and will thus be very simple once the conditionals are dropped. I also considered that a lot of mucking around with PYTHONPATH is required to used the bundled versioneer in this particular package, and I would like to avoid that in the long term. Finally, although I’m generally less willing to go to great lengths to remove bundled sources that don’t directly contribute to the binary RPM contents, the fact that this lets us use a system tool instead of a bundled copy is also a benefit.

(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2)
> LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX

Thank you for the review!

> The only thing worth noting is that upstream has made a new 0.5.4 release.
> Please update during import.

I will do so. It looks like the only changes are PR’s I submitted upstream while packaging:

https://github.com/wtclarke/pymapvbvd/compare/0.5.3...0.5.4

> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>      Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-
>      packages
> ^
> odd: should be owned by the py3.12 packages

I’ve been seeing this too, using fedora-review “hacked up” by the method Jerry James posted on the devel mailing list. I assume it is spurious, and it certainly isn’t a problem with the packages under review, but I haven’t taken the time to hunt down the exact cause.

----

I have adjusted the status of the review from POST to ASSIGNED, since that’s what the automation for requesting a dist-git repository expects.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pymapvbvd

Apparently I can’t file the issue required by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures until something updates the list of components used by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora. I’ll try to remember to check it again later.

FEDORA-2023-4ced2e9543 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4ced2e9543

FEDORA-2023-4ced2e9543 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e

> It *is* package specific

Thank you very much for the detailed discourse on yet another peculiar use of Versioneer.

FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7

FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-61fa4816f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-c0985ab36e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.