https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2292555 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I reviewed this using rust-vte4-sys as packaged in https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2292554#c10. While I had a minor suggestion about the LICENSE URL, I did not find any significant issues. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm with no configuration file, greatly simplifying the review. The only differences are those necessary to supply and list the missing license file; this is done correctly (and will not be necessary once 0.8.0 is packaged). Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/vte4-0.7.1/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is not a serious problem; if it should be fixed, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm. - A better URL for the LICENSE file from upstream would be one that specifically corresponds to the packaged crate, rather than one that tracks a branch that could change. This is not a serious problem, and it does not block approval, since the LICENSE file would be committed to dist-git and only re-downloaded manually (plus, it is included in the crate beginning with 0.8.0). Since upstream does not consistently tag releases, the best we could do is to look at git history and figure out which commit corresponds to the 0.7.1 release. https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/raw/f7202463afeea70b6005abc5511be5f778c1bca6/LICENSE Alternatively, I suppose we could use the v0.7 branch, which *could* change, but is less likely to do so than the main branch: https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/raw/v0.7/LICENSE Again, this is just a suggestion, and no change is required for approval. ===== 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". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2292555-rust- vte4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. $ rpm -qL -p results/rust-vte4-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/share/cargo/registry/vte4-0.7.1/LICENSE [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 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]: 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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/issues/10 (Fixed in 0.8.0.) [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- vte4-devel , rust-vte4+default-devel , rust-vte4+v0_66-devel , rust- vte4+v0_70-devel , rust-vte4+v0_72-devel , rust-vte4+v0_74-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. The submitter wrote, “Staying with 0.7 series as the 0.8 upgrade requires a bunch of updates to existing package.” A quick investigation suggests that upgrading to 0.8 needs to be done along with the entire gtk-rs stack, and that packaging 0.7.1 is indeed the best approach to align with the other gtk-rs packages. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. The license file is not in the main source, but is correctly taken from upstream and is the correct license text for the packaged crate. The Issues section has a suggestion about forming a more stable URL. [-]: 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://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/rust-vte4/packages/ [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. The spec file correctly compiles and runs tests; unfortunately, none are included in the crate. [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-vte4-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4+default-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4+v0_66-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4+v0_70-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4+v0_72-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4+v0_74-devel-0.7.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-0.7.1-1.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/tmp_d3x7b95')] checks: 32, packages: 7 rust-vte4+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_66-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_70-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_72-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_74-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ====================================================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ======================================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 6 rust-vte4+v0_70-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_74-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_66-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+v0_72-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/raw/main/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9c4c77baa3828004ee54b8a4f2db2e88ed44a6237a493965bf551fac0fcb62d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9c4c77baa3828004ee54b8a4f2db2e88ed44a6237a493965bf551fac0fcb62d https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/vte4/0.7.1/download#/vte4-0.7.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 666a15c7ac6316a3c1bf8c5bc30d687e7405a8cba120c50569a7adeeabbbd1c6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 666a15c7ac6316a3c1bf8c5bc30d687e7405a8cba120c50569a7adeeabbbd1c6 Requires -------- rust-vte4-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(cairo-rs/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(cairo-rs/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(gdk4/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(gdk4/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(gio/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(gio/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(glib/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(glib/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(gtk4/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(gtk4/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(io-lifetimes/default) >= 2.0.3 with crate(io-lifetimes/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(pango/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(pango/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(vte4-sys/default) >= 0.7.0 with crate(vte4-sys/default) < 0.8.0~) cargo rust-vte4+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vte4) rust-vte4+v0_66-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(vte4-sys/v0_66) >= 0.7.0 with crate(vte4-sys/v0_66) < 0.8.0~) cargo crate(vte4) rust-vte4+v0_70-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(vte4-sys/v0_70) >= 0.7.0 with crate(vte4-sys/v0_70) < 0.8.0~) cargo crate(vte4) crate(vte4/v0_66) rust-vte4+v0_72-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(vte4-sys/v0_72) >= 0.7.0 with crate(vte4-sys/v0_72) < 0.8.0~) cargo crate(vte4) crate(vte4/v0_70) rust-vte4+v0_74-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(vte4-sys/v0_74) >= 0.7.0 with crate(vte4-sys/v0_74) < 0.8.0~) cargo crate(vte4) crate(vte4/v0_72) Provides -------- rust-vte4-devel: crate(vte4) rust-vte4-devel rust-vte4+default-devel: crate(vte4/default) rust-vte4+default-devel rust-vte4+v0_66-devel: crate(vte4/v0_66) rust-vte4+v0_66-devel rust-vte4+v0_70-devel: crate(vte4/v0_70) rust-vte4+v0_70-devel rust-vte4+v0_72-devel: crate(vte4/v0_72) rust-vte4+v0_72-devel rust-vte4+v0_74-devel: crate(vte4/v0_74) rust-vte4+v0_74-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L vte4-deps/ -b 2292555 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Haskell, R, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/vte4-deps/rust-vte4-sys+default-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/vte4-deps/rust-vte4-sys-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/vte4-deps/rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/vte4-deps/rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/vte4-deps/rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/vte4-deps/rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm -- 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=2292555 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202292555%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
