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 2257677 - Review Request: python-snakemake-storage-plugin-http - Snakemake storage plugin for downloading input files from HTTP(s)
Summary: Review Request: python-snakemake-storage-plugin-http - Snakemake storage plug...
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: 2257676
Blocks: fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora 2255578
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2024-01-10 13:04 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2024-01-19 04:48 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2024-01-19 04:48:31 UTC
Type: Bug
gui1ty: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2024-01-10 13:04:56 UTC
Spec URL:


Snakemake storage plugin for downloading input files from HTTP(s).

Fedora Account System Username: music

Building this package requires (at least a bootstrap build of) python-snakemake-interface-storage-plugins, bug 2257676, as well as (at least a bootstrap build) of snakemake >= 8,

A COPR build is available at:

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-10 13:07:30 UTC
Copr build:

Build log:

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field

This comment was created by the fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Sandro 2024-01-18 21:50:38 UTC
Package Review

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


Seeing all the specific version restrictions in the dependencies, this will become an interesting pool of packages to maintain.

Package is APPROVED.

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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.
[?]: 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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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

[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[-]: 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

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[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]: 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.

Checking: python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-http-0.2.3-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxl83_9na')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Rpmlint (installed packages)
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-http".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
checks: 32, packages: 1

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

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 12fc0f612da7073852caee0e9789072a1de1cdbff93e849c44b06165850fe794
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 12fc0f612da7073852caee0e9789072a1de1cdbff93e849c44b06165850fe794

python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-http (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.12dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.12dist(requests) >= 2.28.2)
    (python3.12dist(requests-oauthlib) < 2~~ with python3.12dist(requests-oauthlib) >= 1.3.1)
    (python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-common) < 2~~ with python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-common) >= 1.14)
    (python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-storage-plugins) < 4~~ with python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-storage-plugins) >= 3)


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-snakemake-storage-plugin-http --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Java, R, Haskell, C/C++, Perl

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2024-01-19 03:07:50 UTC
Thank you!

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-01-19 03:08:44 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at

Comment 5 Ben Beasley 2024-01-19 03:16:24 UTC

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2024-01-19 04:47:03 UTC
FEDORA-2024-a2f086ebfe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2024-01-19 04:48:31 UTC
FEDORA-2024-a2f086ebfe has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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.