https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181039 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to fedora.dm0 from comment #5) > Thanks, spec and SRPM are updated. (The SRPM URL switched to fc38.) > > I actually started with cargo-rpm-macros as the dependency but changed it to > follow the guidelines, so I suppose this line needs to be updated: > > All Rust packages MUST have BuildRequires: rust-packaging. Meh, you're right. This is outdated. I need to update the Rust packaging guidelines anyway :( Package looks good to me now (with two small things that I'll mention below). === Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ (This is a false positive for Rust crates that also build C / Assembly with the "cc" crate, which pulls in gcc automatically.) - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5079040 bytes in 73 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation (This is an actual "problem".) ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Note: Documented in generated file instead. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: FPC exception is no longer required, but bundled libraries need to be declared. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. Note: Not tested. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: firecracker-1.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm firecracker-debuginfo-1.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm firecracker-debugsource-1.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm firecracker-1.3.1-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp2bhl0wgy')] checks: 31, packages: 4 firecracker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 62% firecracker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary firecracker firecracker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rebase-snap firecracker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary seccompiler-bin firecracker.src: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 firecracker.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 firecracker-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 firecracker-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: firecracker-debuginfo-1.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpaybupi8x')] checks: 31, packages: 1 firecracker-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3 firecracker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 62% firecracker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary firecracker firecracker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rebase-snap firecracker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary seccompiler-bin firecracker-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 firecracker-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 firecracker.x86_64: W: invalid-license (Apache-2.0 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/micro-http/archive/4b18a043e997da5b5f679e3defc279fec908753e/micro_http-4b18a04.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7540fd4bb5be024c2227ce12af3e5a7822389e3e63d66986c03053e8df515fe7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7540fd4bb5be024c2227ce12af3e5a7822389e3e63d66986c03053e8df515fe7 https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/kvm-bindings/archive/e8359204b41d5c2e7c5af9ae5c26283b62337740/kvm-bindings-e835920.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d7976008ea568bc82963a8ad5b3835da903d24335a010455de6dbd9ceb97179b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d7976008ea568bc82963a8ad5b3835da903d24335a010455de6dbd9ceb97179b https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker/archive/v1.3.1/firecracker-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9295c3738b07c503a43977fa19633dc4197a90092b3b88346cd10713ff95bed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9295c3738b07c503a43977fa19633dc4197a90092b3b88346cd10713ff95bed Requires -------- firecracker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) firecracker-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): firecracker-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- firecracker: firecracker firecracker(x86-64) firecracker-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) firecracker-debuginfo firecracker-debuginfo(x86-64) firecracker-debugsource: firecracker-debugsource firecracker-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2181039 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, PHP, Python, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH === Two minor issues remaining: 1. Bundled crates are not declared. You will need to add something like this (please fix and adapt the version strings as necessary): # kvm-bindings: Apache-2.0 Provides: bundled(crate(kvm-bindings)) = 0.6.0^gite835920 # micro_http: Apache-2.0 Provides: bundled(crate(micro_http)) = 0^git4b18a04 2. Docs are rather large compared to the rest of the package: firecracker.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 62% The suggested action here would be to add a separate "-doc" subpackage and move large documentation there, but this is not a MUST if you want to keep these files in the main package (most likely this would be the /docs/ directory, which is ~5 MB, while the rest of the package and *all* binaries combined are only ~3 MB). === As far as I can tell right now, these two are the last issues, and the package is ready for approval otherwise. -- 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=2181039 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
