[Bug 2259867] Review Request: rust-askama_parser - Parser for Askama templates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259867

Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
                 CC|                            |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


The spec is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, greatly simplifying the review.


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/askama_parser-0.2.1/LICENSE-APACHE
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  This is not a serious problem; if it needs to be fixed, it should be done in
  rust2rpm.


===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2259867-rust-
     askama_parser/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/cargo/registry

     Diagnostic is spurious (fedora-review bug).

[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.
[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 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]: 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

===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     askama_parser-devel , rust-askama_parser+default-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (tests pass)

[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113710352

[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-askama_parser-devel-0.2.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-askama_parser+default-devel-0.2.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-askama_parser-0.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
===========================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
==========================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpmn3c6d96')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-askama_parser+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
===================================================== 3 packages and 0
specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3
s =====================================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 2

rust-askama_parser+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/askama_parser/0.2.1/download#/askama_parser-0.2.1.crate
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
acb1161c6b64d1c3d83108213c2a2533a342ac225aabd0bda218278c2ddb00c0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
acb1161c6b64d1c3d83108213c2a2533a342ac225aabd0bda218278c2ddb00c0


Requires
--------
rust-askama_parser-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(nom) >= 7.0.0 with crate(nom) < 8.0.0~)
    (crate(nom/alloc) >= 7.0.0 with crate(nom/alloc) < 8.0.0~)
    cargo
    rust

rust-askama_parser+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(askama_parser)



Provides
--------
rust-askama_parser-devel:
    crate(askama_parser)
    rust-askama_parser-devel

rust-askama_parser+default-devel:
    crate(askama_parser/default)
    rust-askama_parser+default-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2259867 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, R, PHP,
Python, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
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=2259867

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259867%23c3
--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux