[Bug 2385914] New: Review Request: python-pytest-gitconfig - Provide a Git config sandbox for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Bug ID: 2385914 Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-gitconfig - Provide a Git config sandbox for testing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-gitconfig.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-gitconfig-0.7.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
summary: Provide a Git config sandbox for testing.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Alexander Lent lx@xanderlent.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lx@xanderlent.com Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |lx@xanderlent.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Alexander Lent lx@xanderlent.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Lent lx@xanderlent.com --- Just a few nits, but I'm not going to block on them.
- Have you considered using PyPI sources instead of GitHub? The released sources have a version identifier, removing the need for sed. I tested it locally with Source: %{pypi_source pytest_gitconfig} and with %autosetup -p1 -n pytest_gitconfig-%{version} (swapping in the underscore). - Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ChangeToGitCore as of F42 packages should require git-core instead of git if all that is needed is the core git binary. (I rebuilt it locally this way and the tests pass.) - Also, reading the package's code, I see nothing that actually depends on the git binary existing at runtime. Is the runtime Requires necessary?
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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/xander/Documents/2385914-python-pytest- gitconfig/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [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 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. [!]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6779 bytes in 1 files. [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. [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 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-pytest-gitconfig-0.7.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-pytest-gitconfig-0.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp2__v9iaw')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/noirbizarre/pytest-gitconfig/archive/0.7.0/pytest-gitconf... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b06920574ab8da8db83cd3c2eeb7f126e783a8294eff3bf640c2bb7a7af9f7e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b06920574ab8da8db83cd3c2eeb7f126e783a8294eff3bf640c2bb7a7af9f7e
Requires -------- python3-pytest-gitconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(pytest)
Provides -------- python3-pytest-gitconfig: python-pytest-gitconfig python3-pytest-gitconfig python3.14-pytest-gitconfig python3.14dist(pytest-gitconfig) python3dist(pytest-gitconfig)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2385914 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-gitconfig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ae6743c388 (python-pytest-gitconfig-0.7.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ae6743c388
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ae6743c388 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-ae6743c388 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ae6743c388
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385914
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-08-12 00:56:11
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ae6743c388 (python-pytest-gitconfig-0.7.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com