https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260849 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package looks good to me. Thank you! ================================================================================ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stgit See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This is OK, since this is a re-review to unretire this package. ===== 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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. [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]: 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 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. This is probably OK since the internal calls to "cargo" are themselves parallel. Other commands don't take much time and don't need to be parallelized. [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. This is OK. The packaged version is the latest version that is currently compatible with versions of dependencies that are available in Fedora. The package can be updated when the dependencies are updated. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). This is expected for packages that use rpmautospec. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: stgit-2.4.0-5.fc41.x86_64.rpm stgit-debuginfo-2.4.0-5.fc41.x86_64.rpm stgit-debugsource-2.4.0-5.fc41.x86_64.rpm stgit-2.4.0-5.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/tmpn21f3qjm')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: stgit-debuginfo-2.4.0-5.fc41.x86_64.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/tmpleurnsxp')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 3 stgit.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/stg /lib64/libm.so.6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stacked-git/stgit/releases/download/v2.4.0/stgit-2.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5836789617a3794f5626194e9670a24497ff5b3f9c779bd13decef3d4e1ee95d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5836789617a3794f5626194e9670a24497ff5b3f9c779bd13decef3d4e1ee95d Requires -------- stgit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs-filesystem git-core git-email ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(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) vim-filesystem stgit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): stgit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- stgit: stgit stgit(x86-64) stgit-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) stgit-debuginfo stgit-debuginfo(x86-64) stgit-debugsource: stgit-debugsource stgit-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- (diff irrelevant, caused by rpmautospec processing) ================================================================================ Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org This appears to have already been done for the previously existing package: https://release-monitoring.org/project/4892/ - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (optional) This will cause the Rust SIG to be CC'd on all bugs for this package. Since this is a Rust package, it's probably what you want. - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) For applications, you might want to *not* do this, since you're most qualified to decide about bugs and / or version updates. However, for Rust libraries, I recommend adding the @rust-sig override. - track package in koschei for all built branches https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/search?q=stgit I think this should resolve itself automatically once the package unretirement is processed. ================================================================================ You can proceed with filing the unretirement request with releng now. Let me know when you're ready to re-import and build the package. This package didn't use rpmautospec before it was retired, it might require special care to preserve old changelog entries correctly. -- 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=2260849 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202260849%23c12 -- _______________________________________________ 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
