https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173 --- Comment #23 from Dorinda <dbassey@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License (v2.0) or bsd_-3-Clause_clause". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/cargo/registry [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: package is requiring an ExcludeArch for s390x and provides justification for it [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- virtio-vsock-devel , rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.6 starting (python version = 3.12.3, NVR = mock-5.6-1.fc40), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/results install /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/results/rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/results/rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.6 INFO: Mock Version: 5.6 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M f0274a22ef8345aabde5c4433df01251 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.iai8wnfn:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 install /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.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/tmpl8e28v4i')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation = 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s = Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-vmm/vm-virtio/main/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clause : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6d3ebd1c2f37d4fd83d0676621f695fc0cc2d8c6e646cdbb831b46e0650c208 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6d3ebd1c2f37d4fd83d0676621f695fc0cc2d8c6e646cdbb831b46e0650c208 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-vmm/vm-virtio/main/LICENSE-APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/virtio-vsock/0.6.0/download#/virtio-vsock-0.6.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f32bf3cad748b3004afe3afd860f060c4ec57f5ac329dd46f0b5bf8520244332 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f32bf3cad748b3004afe3afd860f060c4ec57f5ac329dd46f0b5bf8520244332 Requires -------- rust-virtio-vsock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(virtio-bindings/default) >= 0.2.2 with crate(virtio-bindings/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(virtio-queue/default) >= 0.12.0 with crate(virtio-queue/default) < 0.13.0~) (crate(vm-memory/default) >= 0.14.0 with crate(vm-memory/default) < 0.15.0~) cargo rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(virtio-vsock) rust-virtio-vsock-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- rust-virtio-vsock-devel: crate(virtio-vsock) rust-virtio-vsock-devel rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel: crate(virtio-vsock/default) rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (0d080d6) last change: 2024-04-09 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2299173 -v Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, fonts, Ruby, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, PHP, Java 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=2299173 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202299173%23c23 -- _______________________________________________ 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
