https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: > /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_duplicate_files > > This is a problem with rust2rpm and not necessarily something that can be > fixed here. > > I suppose the best way to handle this for now would be to remove the license > files and README from %{crate_instdir} in %install and just mark the relative > paths with `%doc` and `%license` to install them in the usual locations. This way of doing this was added on request: we need the license files to present in %{crate_instdir} because some packages may access them in there (e.g. to show a the README internally in help or something like that). So right now we say something like %files %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE %{crate_instdir}/ I thought rpm would be smart enough to understand that all files in that directory should be packaged, except that one should tagged as license. Maybe there's some way to tell rpm that. (But yeah, that's something to fix in rust2rpm.) > - 's/Patch0:/Patch: /'. Source isn't numbered and Patch doesn't need to be > either. Numbering Sources and Patches is done automatically in modern RPM > versions. That's an RFE for rust2rpm too. Oh, I see you submitted a PR already. I'll take a look. > rpmlint finds: > rust-print_bytes.src: W: strange-permission rust-print_bytes.spec 600 > NOTE: This should be fixed Meh, this is actually an obsolete check. git doesn't maintain a full permission mask, but only three bits essentially: directory?, writable?, executable?. Git simply doesn't store information about permission mask for other or group users, but just uses some fixed values (determined by umask, core.sharedRepository). And of course dist-git is git. So even if we have a file with such permissions, once it's imported into dist-git, it'll get the usual mask anyway. So the whole check and the warning are just pointless. > rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation > rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation > NOTE: spurious > > rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 > rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 > rust-print_bytes.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 > rust-print_bytes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 > NOTE: I assume you switched these to use SPDX identifiers now that that's > been > approved. The Change owners said[1] that's allowed now, but apparently > rpmlint > hasn't been updated. Yeah. There's a PR for rust2rpm with this. > [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > NOTE: rust2rpm -p should probably give a more descriptive comment > than "# Initial patched metadata", but oh well. Ack. It should at least say if it was generated automatically or by the maintainer. -- Thanks! -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
