Re: Questions regarding %pyproject_buildrequires

On 04. 09. 22 22:08, Sandro wrote: > On 04-09-2022 20:42, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 04. 09. 22 14:15, Sandro wrote: >>> Hi, >> >> Hi. >> >>> I'm tinkering with a package in review, trying to understand the Python RPM >>> build process. The package is hatch-fancy-pypi-readme [1]. >>> >>> The package uses hatch for build, but it includes a non-license file, >>> AUTHORS.md, which I thought would be trivial to patch around, so it's not >>> included in the RPM. >> >> I don't understand why do you want to do this in the first place. What is the >> issue with the file? > > Well, fedora-review complains about the file not being included in the package > as %license. There's more details in the package review: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123618 An automated tool complains about that file not being marked as %license. I don't understand why is that a reason to remove it entirely. I've commented on the bugzilla for other options.

>>> I patched the pyproject.toml and added: >>> >>> [tool.hatch.build] >>> exclude = ["AUTHORS.md"] >> >> I don't know hatch, so I cannot tell whether this does something useful. >> Note that upstream has committed >> https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/commit/3b17e39c which might >> solve this (or not, not sure). > > I don't know much about Hatch myself, but that's the Hatch way of excluding > files according to their documentation. But since Hatch does not appear to be > used in the RPM build process, this has no effect. I am pretty sure hatch *is* used during the build. It creates the licenses directory in /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/

>>> Then I realized %pyproject_buildrequires has the option -w enabled, producing a >>> wheel for metadata extraction. So, I added a patch, putting a MANIFEST.in in >>> the root dir of the project with one line: >>> >>> exclude AUTHORS.md >> >> The MANIFEST.in file does not say which files will be installed. It is used by >> distutils and/or setuptools to determine which files will be in the source >> tarball. I am not entirely sure if hatch reads that file at all. > > Clear. > > Yet, strangely enough with the described MANIFEST.in in place and running > 'python3 -m build --sdist', the resulting tar.gz archive still has the > AUTHORS.md file in it. That only confirms what I thought: hatch does not even read this file. It is distutils/setuptools specific.

>>> Yet the whl archive still contains the file: >>> >>> hatch_fancy_pypi_readme-22.3.0.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS.md >>> >>> and so does the final RPM. >>> >>> Do I have to resort to manually removing the file in %prep? >> >> If you insist on removing that file, deleting it in %prep sounds like much >> easier option than patching pyproject.toml. However, I'd keep it. > > Here is where it gets interesting. > > I can not do without the file or the tests will fail. See the review bug > mentioned above. Just add a 'rm -f AUTHORS.md' to %prep in the spec file. > > But keeping it around, fedora-review (rpmlint) will keep complaining about its > presence as a not included license file since it is installed in the license > dir together with the LICENSE.txt file. fedora-review is not always right. Please don't try to do ugly things to make it happier. Anyway, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123618#c6 >>> I encountered another issue with %pyproject_buildrequires when passing the -t >>> option for automatic test requirements. >>> >>> I wanted to see if I can get rid of the extra BuildRequires in the submitters >>> spec file [2], so I commented out all but python3-dev and python3-test >>> BuildRequires and added -t to %pyproject_buildrequires. >>> >>> That made the build fail with: >>> >>> No matching package to install: 'python3dist(pytest-icdiff)' >>> >>> Yet, I don't see any test or other python module importing icdiff. Building >>> with the original spec file, tests are run and succeed. >>> >>> Is that a known issue with the -t option? Or am I missing something? >> >> The pytest-icdiff dependency is listed by upstream as their test dependency for >> tox (-t stands for tox): >> >> https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/blob/22.3.0/tox.ini#L49 -> >> https://github.com/hynek/hatch-fancy-pypi-readme/blob/22.3.0/pyproject.to... > > Thank you for the pointer. I missed looking in the pyproject.toml file. I > searched in the tests dir. > >> The -t option reads that and generates the BuildRequires. If it is not needed, >> I suggest talking to upstream about why is this listed. In the meantime, you >> have 2 options to avoid the unwanted dependency: >> >>    - don't use -t and list test dependencies manually instead >>    - patch/sed it out from pyproject.toml > > It looks like it's not being used (any more). Building the package without -t > and without listing python3dist(pytest-icdiff), which is not even available in > Fedora, succeeds. The package is for fancier diffs when tests fail. It seems to be what upstream prefers when they run tests but I agree that it is not important in the RPM package. Similarly, upstream lists coverage as their test dependency and we should not depend on that downstream, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters