https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
Bug ID: 2310498 Summary: Review Request: python-scooby - A Great Dane turned Python environment detective Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-scooby.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description:
This is a lightweight tool for easily reporting your Python environment’s package versions and hardware resources.
Fedora Account System Username: music
In addition to offering a potentially-useful command-line tool, this package is also a dependency for https://pypi.org/project/pyvista/, which in turn is a test dependency for https://pypi.org/project/fast-simplification/, which is a new optional dependency for python-trimesh. It will therefore be a neuro-sig package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |1276941 | |(fedora-neuro,NeuroFedora)
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=2310498
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7990262 (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=2310498
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1276941 | |(fedora-neuro,NeuroFedora) |
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #0)
In addition to offering a potentially-useful command-line tool, this package is also a dependency for https://pypi.org/project/pyvista/, which in turn is a test dependency for https://pypi.org/project/fast-simplification/, which is a new optional dependency for python-trimesh. It will therefore be a neuro-sig package.
It turns out that:
1. Only some VTK integration tests (and VTK integration features) in python-fast-simplification require python-pyvista. I can therefore skip packaging python-pyvista. 2. I can’t package python-pyvista right now anyway because the Python bindings for VTK are broken in Fedora (bug 2310520). 3. Therefore, I don’t really need python-scooby for the dependency tree of python-trimesh.
Therefore, I’m unblocking the fedora-neuro bug, and this won’t be a neuro-sig package. I’ll still keep the review open, since I’ve already done the packaging work and the package has some general utility.
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=2310498
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8547953 (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=2310498
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128192832
One of hte tests fails locally for me:
+ /usr/bin/pytest -k 'not test_get_version and not test_tracking and not test_import_os_error' ============================= test session starts ============================== platform linux -- Python 3.13.1, pytest-8.3.4, pluggy-1.5.0 rootdir: /builddir/build/BUILD/python-scooby-0.10.0-build/scooby-0.10.0 configfile: pyproject.toml plugins: console-scripts-1.4.1 collected 13 items / 3 deselected / 10 selected tests/test_scooby.py .......F.. [100%] =================================== FAILURES =================================== _______________________________ test_import_time _______________________________ @pytest.mark.skipif(not sys.platform.startswith('linux'), reason="Not Linux.") def test_import_time(): # Relevant for packages which provide a CLI: # How long does it take to import? cmd = ["time", "-f", "%U", sys.executable, "-c", "import scooby"] # Run it twice, just in case. subprocess.run(cmd) subprocess.run(cmd) # Capture it out = subprocess.run(cmd, capture_output=True)
# Currently we check t < 0.2 s.
assert float(out.stderr.decode("utf-8")[:-1]) < 0.2
E AssertionError: assert 0.23 < 0.2 E + where 0.23 = float('0.23') tests/test_scooby.py:211: AssertionError ----------------------------- Captured stderr call ----------------------------- 0.20 0.21 =========================== short test summary info ============================ FAILED tests/test_scooby.py::test_import_time - AssertionError: assert 0.23 <... ================== 1 failed, 9 passed, 3 deselected in 6.88s ===================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5)
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128192832
One of hte tests fails locally for me:
Good to know! Looking at this test, it’s just checking how long it takes to start up a Python interpreter and "import scooby". That makes sense for upstream to guard against performance regressions (although it would be a better measure if they didn’t include the Python interpreter startup time), but we should skip it because the package could be built on all kinds of hardware with varying performance. I propose adding:
# Import performance test may fail flakily or on slower hardware k="${k-}${k+ and }not test_import_time"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250120/python-scooby.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250120/python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2066807 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2066807&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8547953 to 8552511
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8552511 (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=2310498
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-scooby/2310498-python- scooby/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/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. [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 14687 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: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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). [ ]: 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 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. [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-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpub2mwsat')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/banesullivan/scooby/archive/v0.10.0/scooby-0.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b14342fb618655f43d35cfce57625dcfc3751611f3afbd16e4859b3900bdb9cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b14342fb618655f43d35cfce57625dcfc3751611f3afbd16e4859b3900bdb9cc
Requires -------- python3-scooby (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-scooby: python-scooby python3-scooby python3.13-scooby python3.13dist(scooby) python3dist(scooby)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2310498 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, R, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
https://release-monitoring.org/project/72947/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #12 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-scooby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-caeb6e86fc (python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-caeb6e86fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-01-20 18:20:00
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-caeb6e86fc (python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8414ebd342 (python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8414ebd342
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-25b35f469a (python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-25b35f469a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-25b35f469a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-25b35f469a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-25b35f469a
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=2310498
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8414ebd342 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-8414ebd342 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8414ebd342
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=2310498
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8414ebd342 (python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310498
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-25b35f469a (python-scooby-0.10.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org