[Bug 2257921] New: Review Request: python-medimages4tests - Generates dummy medical image for image handling tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Bug ID: 2257921 Summary: Review Request: python-medimages4tests - Generates dummy medical image for image handling tests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gui1ty@penguinpee.nl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/xnat4tests/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/xnat4tests/fedora-...
Description: Generate dummy medical images, with junk image data but realistic headers, to test imaging handling pipelines.
Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/xnat4tests/build/6880374/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2257916 Blocks| |1276941 | |(fedora-neuro,NeuroFedora) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Package depends on `python-sgqlc` (see bug 2257916). For building / testing locally run `dnf copr enable gui1ty/xnat4tests` in order to get the missing dependencies.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257916 [Bug 2257916] Review Request: openneuro-py - A Python client for OpenNeuro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6885522 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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 https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2257923
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257923 [Bug 2257923] Review Request: python-xnat4tests - Create basic XNAT instance for API tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #3 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Sigh. CopyPasta gone wrong.
Package depends on `openneuro-py` (see bug 2257916). For building / testing locally run `dnf copr enable gui1ty/xnat4tests` in order to get the missing dependencies.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) Last Closed| |2024-01-16 13:43:13
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- As a Python library (and furthermore, as an image *generator* rather than a collection of images that happens to be installed as a Python library), this package clearly contains *code* under the CC0-1.0 license, which is not-allowed for code in Fedora.
(The trove classifier "License :: OSI Approved :: Apache Software License" conflicts with the LICENSE file, which is certainly CC0-1.0.)
I think you will need to ask upstream to consider relicensing, or give up on running the tests that require this.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|WONTFIX |DEFERRED
--- Comment #5 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #4)
(The trove classifier "License :: OSI Approved :: Apache Software License" conflicts with the LICENSE file, which is certainly CC0-1.0.)
I think you will need to ask upstream to consider relicensing, or give up on running the tests that require this.
My bad. I remember having a hunch when I filled in the license in the spec file. But I failed to look into this further.
I'll set this to DEFERRED for now, since I plan on asking upstream to consider relicensing under one of the allowed licenses.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921 Bug 2257921 depends on bug 2257916, which changed state.
Bug 2257916 Summary: Review Request: python-openneuro - A Python client for OpenNeuro https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257916
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review- | Status|CLOSED |NEW Assignee|code@musicinmybrain.net |nobody@fedoraproject.org Resolution|DEFERRED |--- Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | URL| |https://github.com/Australi | |an-Imaging-Service/medimage | |s4tests Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #6 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Upstream has relicensed the package under Apache-2.0. I'm reopening the review request.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-medimages4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-medimages4tests-0.5.7-1.fc43....
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8920209 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- This looks good overall, with a couple of nitpicks that still need to be handled.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The license-change patch is acceptable since upstream has merged the change,
https://github.com/Australian-Imaging-Service/medimages4tests/commit/c0a06fa...
and this is the only commit since the tag you are packaging, so it’s clear that the exact source archive you are using may be used under Apache-2.0.
You might find that it’s simpler to package a post-release snapshot of that commit, rather than patching the license, but the status quo is OK.
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec
- The versioneer.py included in the source distribution is version 2.21, which was CC0-1.0:
https://github.com/python-versioneer/python-versioneer/tree/0.21?tab=readme-...
This should be OK under the exception:
Existing uses of CC0-1.0 on code files in Fedora packages prior to 2022-08-01, and subsequent upstream versions of those files in those packages, continue to be allowed. We encourage Fedora package maintainers to ask upstreams to relicense such files.
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/91#note_1151947...
It looks like you’re using the system versioneeer, which is version 0.29 and is Unlicense, but looking at the _version.py file in the binary RPMs, it was still generated by Versioneer 0.21, so it is still CC0-1.0.
You’ll therefore need to account for this in the License field, something like:
# The entire source is Apache-2.0, except that versioneer.py and the # _version.py it generates are CC0-1.0, not generally allowed for code # in Fedora, but OK under the exception for existing uses in Fedora prior # to 2022-08-01. License: Apache-2.0 AND CC0-1.0
If you can figure out how to remove the bundled versioneer.py in %prep and re-generate _version.py with the system versioneer package, then you can do:
# The entire source is Apache-2.0, except that versioneer.py and the # _version.py it generates are CC0-1.0, not generally allowed for code in # Fedora, but OK under the exception for existing uses in Fedora prior to # 2022-08-01. While these are included in the source RPM, we re-generate # _version.py using the system python-versioneer, which is a later version # under Unlicense so the resulting _version.py is also Unlicense. License: Apache-2.0 AND Unlicense
I tried to demonstrate this, but I could not seem to get it working. Given that _version.py was unchanged from upstream, I also tried to avoid the song-and-dance with git in %prep and just export SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION, but (unusually) I could not get that to work either. I wonder what is different here from most other packages that use Versioneer…
If you can help upstream upgrade their Versioneer to a recent version that is Unlicense rather than CC0-1.0, so much the better.
- I don’t think this is correct:
# Remove empty file (rpmlint reports as error) [ -s medimages4tests/mri/neuro/base.py ] || rm medimages4tests/mri/neuro/base.py
A zero-byte file is still importable as an empty Python module:
python3 -c 'import medimages4tests.mri.neuro.basex'
…and by removing the source, you have broken the import. The empty module seems pointless, but it might still be used somewhere, and there is no good reason to diverge from upstream here.
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python- medimages4tests/licensecheck.txt
See Issues; _version.py is CC0-1.0
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13
Spurious; these directories are owned by python3-libs.
[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. [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]: 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).
Some Python sources with trivial contents are incidental duplicates. They are small in size, few in number, and not worth manually hardlinking.
[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]: 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 2532 bytes in 2 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.
(tests pass)
[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 justified.
Particularly, upstream has accepted the license change.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-medimages4tests-0.5.7-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-medimages4tests-0.5.7-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmphwv7xk4w')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-medimages4tests.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: license_change.patch python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/petct_spl/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_dynamics_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_listmode/__init__.py:(and 1 more) python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_replay_param/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/data.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/data.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/petct_spl/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_dynamics_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_listmode/__init__.py:(and 1 more) python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_replay_param/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/data.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/data.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/australian-imaging-service/medimages4tests/archive/v0.5.7... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9eea5545e9f9da49cb3f7b5812ae6fd2e31e0475cdfabe4a42349a4e6f7d988a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9eea5545e9f9da49cb3f7b5812ae6fd2e31e0475cdfabe4a42349a4e6f7d988a
Requires -------- python3-medimages4tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(attrs) python3.13dist(nibabel) python3.13dist(openneuro-py) python3.13dist(pydicom)
Provides -------- python3-medimages4tests: python-medimages4tests python3-medimages4tests python3.13-medimages4tests python3.13dist(medimages4tests) python3dist(medimages4tests)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python-medimages4tests/srpm/python-medimages4tests.spec 2025-04-19 08:49:43.336365174 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python-medimages4tests/srpm-unpacked/python-medimages4tests.spec 2025-04-17 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global pypi_name medimages4tests %global forgeurl https://github.com/australian-imaging-service/medimages4tests @@ -74,3 +84,15 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Apr 18 2025 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.5.7-1 +- Update to 0.5.7 + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.3.3-3 +- Remove empty file (rpmlint error) + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.3.3-2 +- Exclude scripts/ and tests/ from wheel + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.3.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257921 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Perl, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Oops, missed one:
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131715275
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #10 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Thanks for the detailed review.
You might find that it’s simpler to package a post-release snapshot of that commit, rather than patching the license, but the status quo is OK.
I actually like that idea. Though, trying to get there with forge macros _and_ Versioneer makes this more difficult than it should be. I might still do it anyway.
I tried to demonstrate this, but I could not seem to get it working. Given that _version.py was unchanged from upstream, I also tried to avoid the song-and-dance with git in %prep and just export SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION, but (unusually) I could not get that to work either. I wonder what is different here from most other packages that use Versioneer…
That statement confused me. Does Versioneer honor SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION? I searched through the code and didn't find any mention of it. There is an open issue requesting support for an override by environment variable:
https://github.com/python-versioneer/python-versioneer/issues/199
For the rest of the discussion regarding Versioneer, I believe we had a similar debate before. Somehow, I thought using the packaged Versioneer would allow me to omit expanding on the license.
But it seems I remembered wrong and I will have to add something either way. I will try to get it working using the system installed Versioneer replacing whatever upstream ships. I wish we could get a global exception not having to bother with Versioneer's license...
A zero-byte file is still importable as an empty Python module:
python3 -c 'import medimages4tests.mri.neuro.basex'
…and by removing the source, you have broken the import. The empty module seems pointless, but it might still be used somewhere, and there is no good reason to diverge from upstream here.
By "broken the import" are you referring to the import statement above? Because for me `%pyproject_check_import` works either way.
Your point is valid, though, and I removed that bit. I will add an `.rpmlintrc` silencing the error.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #11 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- It turned out upstream's Versioneer config is broken. Looks like medimages4tests may have started out as a partial copy of xnat4tests with versioneer.py copied, but not the stuff it generates when installed.
I sent a PR upstream. If that gets merged I can make another post-release including that commit as well.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-medimages4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-medimages4tests-0.5.7%5e20250...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2085976 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2085976&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8920209 to 8945248
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8945248 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
--- Comment #14 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Sandro from comment #10)
That statement confused me. Does Versioneer honor SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION? I searched through the code and didn't find any mention of it. There is an open issue requesting support for an override by environment variable:
No, the problem was that my brain was temporarily broken. You’re correct about Versioneer.
For the rest of the discussion regarding Versioneer, I believe we had a similar debate before. Somehow, I thought using the packaged Versioneer would allow me to omit expanding on the license.
I mean, it *is* a minor quibble, as license issues go, and there is probably an argument that some kinds of _version.py (the ones without substantial code) are potentially too simple and mechanical to be copyrightable in most jurisdictions, but the "License" section of the README does say:
To make Versioneer easier to embed, all its code is dedicated to the public domain. The _version.py that it creates is also in the public domain. Specifically, both are released under the "Unlicense", as described in https://unlicense.org/.
Older versions have the same text, but specify CC0-1.0.
Now, one could probably make some arguments about interpretation and intent, as this text somewhat wrongly conflates these ultra-permissive licenses with a pure public domain dedication, but it seems safest and simplest to just take the statement at face value: the generated _version.py is under the same license as Versioneer, which is Unlicense or CC0-1.0 depending on version. (If I remember correctly, even older versions of Versioneer were LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain.)
I wish we could get a global exception not having to bother with Versioneer's license...
I wish upstreams would just stop using it. It was clever in its day, but tools like setuptools_scm and hatch-vcs are less messy and invasive.
By "broken the import" are you referring to the import statement above? Because for me `%pyproject_check_import` works either way.
Right, I just mean that something, somewhere *could* want to import that module.
(In reply to Sandro from comment #11)
It turned out upstream's Versioneer config is broken. Looks like medimages4tests may have started out as a partial copy of xnat4tests with versioneer.py copied, but not the stuff it generates when installed.
I sent a PR upstream. If that gets merged I can make another post-release including that commit as well.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-medimages4tests.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~gui1ty/review/python-medimages4tests-0.5. 7%5e20250417gitc0a06fa-1.fc43.src.rpm
The spec-file changes here look great at a glance. I’ll take a closer look at the details.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- The submission addresses all the previous feedback; it is simpler than before, which is great; and your efforts to work with upstream may further improve the situation in the future. I found no *new* issues, so the package is APPROVED.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python- medimages4tests/20250420/2257921-python- medimages4tests/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13
(spurious, owned by python3-libs)
[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. [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]: 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]: 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 2532 bytes in 2 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.
(tests pass)
[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 justified. [-]: 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.
(checked on the previous submission, unlikely to have broken)
[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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-medimages4tests-0.5.7^20250417gitc0a06fa-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-medimages4tests-0.5.7^20250417gitc0a06fa-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-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/tmp7_t6s8ym')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-medimages4tests.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/mri/neuro/base.py python-medimages4tests.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-Update-Versioneer-and-fix-config.patch python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/petct_spl/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_dynamics_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_listmode/__init__.py:(and 1 more) python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_replay_param/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/data.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/data.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-medimages4tests.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/mri/neuro/base.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/petct_spl/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_dynamics_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_listmode/__init__.py:(and 1 more) python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_replay_param/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_calibration/data.py python3-medimages4tests.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_em_sino/data.py /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/medimages4tests/dummy/raw/pet/siemens/biograph_vision/vr20b/pet_countrate/data.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/australian-imaging-service/medimages4tests/archive/c0a06f... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5b6cf31ef9bdd5707999a292a557b7c9dc47aefc12835efe7e5dca254fa79ff3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5b6cf31ef9bdd5707999a292a557b7c9dc47aefc12835efe7e5dca254fa79ff3
Requires -------- python3-medimages4tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(attrs) python3.13dist(nibabel) python3.13dist(openneuro-py) python3.13dist(pydicom)
Provides -------- python3-medimages4tests: python-medimages4tests python3-medimages4tests python3.13-medimages4tests python3.13dist(medimages4tests) python3dist(medimages4tests)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python-medimages4tests/20250420/2257921-python-medimages4tests/srpm/python-medimages4tests.spec 2025-04-20 08:52:01.573879457 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2257921-python-medimages4tests/20250420/2257921-python-medimages4tests/srpm-unpacked/python-medimages4tests.spec 2025-04-19 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global pypi_name medimages4tests
@@ -84,3 +94,23 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Apr 20 2025 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.5.7^20250417gitc0a06fa-1 +- Address issues mentioned in review +- Package a post-release (for license change) +- Fix Versioneer as well as its config +- Include Versioneer's license (for _version.py) +- Include zero-byte file +- Make rpmlint not complain about zero-byte file + +* Fri Apr 18 2025 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.5.7-1 +- Update to 0.5.7 + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.3.3-3 +- Remove empty file (rpmlint error) + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.3.3-2 +- Exclude scripts/ and tests/ from wheel + +* Wed Jan 10 2024 Sandro devel@penguinpee.nl - 0.3.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257921 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Haskell, R, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #16 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-medimages4tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257921
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed|2024-01-16 13:43:13 |2025-04-22 06:54:10
--- Comment #17 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b00502e4bc
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com