https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2484925
Withenoughcoffee <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Withenoughcoffee <[email protected]> --- Thank you for taking the time to make the fixes. The build requires change should have the replaced eigen3-devel with eigen3-static, not added it to the builds require. If we can get that fixed, everything else looks good. Package is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/autumnnash/packaging/reviews/2484925-python-ml- dtypes/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/lib64/python3.15, /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 0 bytes in 0 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. [ ]: 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: [!]: 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). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-ml-dtypes-0.5.4-5.fc45.aarch64.rpm python-ml-dtypes-0.5.4-5.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4lti50lk')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-ml-dtypes.aarch64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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-ml-dtypes.aarch64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-ml-dtypes: /usr/lib64/python3.15/site-packages/ml_dtypes/_ml_dtypes_ext.cpython-315-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jax-ml/ml_dtypes/archive/v0.5.4/ml_dtypes-0.5.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acaef497b420a15761cb525562b04d880b5c7afacea02d435a5d166fd8a99a16 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acaef497b420a15761cb525562b04d880b5c7afacea02d435a5d166fd8a99a16 Requires -------- python3-ml-dtypes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.15dist(numpy) >= 1.21 with python3.15dist(numpy) >= 1.21.2 with python3.15dist(numpy) >= 1.23.3 with python3.15dist(numpy) >= 1.26 with python3.15dist(numpy) >= 2.1) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.5.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-ml-dtypes: python-ml-dtypes python3-ml-dtypes python3-ml-dtypes(aarch-64) python3.15-ml-dtypes python3.15dist(ml-dtypes) python3dist(ml-dtypes) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/autumnnash/packaging/reviews/2484925-python-ml-dtypes/srpm/python-ml-dtypes.spec 2026-06-22 14:13:14.844049448 -0700 +++ /home/autumnnash/packaging/reviews/2484925-python-ml-dtypes/srpm-unpacked/python-ml-dtypes.spec 2026-06-18 17:00:00.000000000 -0700 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 5; + 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 _distro_extra_cxxflags -I/usr/include/eigen3 @@ -63,3 +73,18 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Jun 19 2026 Diego Herrera <[email protected]> - 0.5.4-5 +- Review changes + +* Wed Jun 17 2026 Diego Herrera <[email protected]> - 0.5.4-4 +- General clean up + +* Tue Jun 09 2026 Diego Herrera <[email protected]> - 0.5.4-3 +- Use pyp2spec instead of pyp2rpm + +* Tue Jun 09 2026 Diego Herrera <[email protected]> - 0.5.4-2 +- First review round + +* Fri May 29 2026 Diego Herrera <[email protected]> - 0.5.4-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2484925 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, R, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2484925 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202484925%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
