https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839330 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |igor.raits@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(igor.raits@gmail. | |com) --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks mostly fine, though per what Igor suggested for my Wayland packages, probably request that upstream ship the license file too? It's a non-blocker (a SHOULD rather than MUST) but this is also my first Rust review, so let's wait for his comments [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. could you file an issue with upstream, or a PR like this, and link the URL? https://github.com/Smithay/wayland-rs/pull/323 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1839330-rust-rustc_tools_util/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1839330-rust- rustc_tools_util/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. note: not really, since the subpackages don't depend on the main package, but that seems common for Rust packaging [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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 ===== 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. could you file an issue with upstream, or a PR like this, and link the URL? https://github.com/Smithay/wayland-rs/pull/323 [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- rustc_tools_util-devel , rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1839330-rust- rustc_tools_util/srpm-unpacked/rust-rustc_tools_util.spec See: (this test has no URL) I think fedora-review is wrong here [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-rustc_tools_util-devel-0.2.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel-0.2.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rust-rustc_tools_util-0.2.0-1.fc33.src.rpm rust-rustc_tools_util-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rustc -> rust, rustic, crust rust-rustc_tools_util-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/rustc_tools_util HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-rustc_tools_util-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustc_tools_util-0.2.0/.cargo-checksum.json rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rustc -> rust, rustic, crust rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/rustc_tools_util HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustc_tools_util.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/rustc_tools_util HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rustc -> rust, rustic, crust rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/rustc_tools_util <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. rust-rustc_tools_util-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rustc -> rust, rustic, crust rust-rustc_tools_util-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/rustc_tools_util <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rust-rustc_tools_util-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustc_tools_util-0.2.0/.cargo-checksum.json 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/master/LICENSE-MIT : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a794ef6a2198ceccead9ad93326fa35a874a0da5c86fe9b83548515487c7302a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65bacda67be6a43663e5ecbfb8204339bd9154b53ac761c6c633f1877ecec9bc https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/master/LICENSE-APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfd2829c9a9885753852939c874ca626ab7bea37a6a49956236d29c50183352a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 206a0842e7b7235f1105c0da38fb6e31263c5600434cd0b9085fb0de99a90107 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rustc_tools_util/0.2.0/download#/rustc_tools_util-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b725dadae9fabc488df69a287f5a99c5eaf5d10853842a8a3dfac52476f544ee CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b725dadae9fabc488df69a287f5a99c5eaf5d10853842a8a3dfac52476f544ee diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- rust-rustc_tools_util-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rustc_tools_util) Provides -------- rust-rustc_tools_util-devel: crate(rustc_tools_util) rust-rustc_tools_util-devel rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel: crate(rustc_tools_util/default) rust-rustc_tools_util+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1839330 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Perl, PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
