https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2348411 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The package is APPROVED, but please adjust how the patched-in license files are listed when you import the package, as described in the discussion below. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm -I, greatly simplifying the review. I noted the following differences: - Macros for rpmautospec are expanded in the submitted spec file - A patch is added to backport missing license files. +# Backport license files +Patch: https://github.com/mqudsi/rsconf/commit/6bd2a72bd0abea3726a6b7c9d2cec91890f1a84c.patch + This is reasonable, necessary, and correctly done. You might consider something like this in rust2rpm.toml to avoid hand-editing the generated spec file: [[package.extra-patches]] number = 10 file = "https://github.com/mqudsi/rsconf/commit/6bd2a72bd0abea3726a6b7c9d2cec91890f1a84c.patch"; comments = ["Backport license files"] However, since you can expect that the next release will contain license files, there’s nothing wrong with just manually inserting the patch in the spec file as you seem to have done. - The patched-in license files are added to the files list. -# FIXME: no license files detected +%license LICENSE-APACHE LICENSE-MIT You do need to add these to the files list, but rather than installing duplicate copies in /usr/share/licenses by using relative paths in the source directory, you should use the absolute paths of the license files that are already installed, as rust2rpm would do automatically if the license files had been present in the original crate: %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT Issues: ======= - The license files should be listed under %{crate_instdir} in the %files list; see the preliminary notes above. - 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++/ The crate already depends on crate(cc), which correctly depends on /usr/bin/gcc and /usr/bin/g++. There is no need to add a direct BuildRequires on either compiler; no change is required. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/README.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: this is due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm and is not a serious issue. Notes: ====== - There are rpmlint warnings about duplicate files: rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rsconf-devel/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/LICENSE-APACHE rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rsconf-devel/LICENSE-MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/LICENSE-MIT Those two will be fixed by the requested change to how the license files are listed. rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_i64_value.c /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_i32_value.c rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_u64_value.c /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_u32_value.c These two files are semantically different, but they happen to have the same implementation. That is not an error. Because the duplicate files are few in number and small in size, there would be no benefit from manually hardlinking them. I don’t recommend changing anything here. The remaining rpmlint warnings about spelling errors or no-documentation are all spurious. For no-documentation, see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/pull-request/42. - By running the tests under strace, I confirmed that C/C++ compiler invocations in configuration tests do respect the distribution compiler flags, as we might expect since the cc crate is used. This is probably a good thing overall, although there could be some weird cases in which the distribution compiler flags subvert what someone is trying to test. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2348411-rust- rsconf/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]: %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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Upstream has already added necessary license files, but has not yet included this change in a release. [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- rsconf-devel , rust-rsconf+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. (License files are patched in from an unreleased upstream commit.) [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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=129632472 [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: [!]: 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). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-rsconf-devel-0.2.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-rsconf+default-devel-0.2.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-rsconf-0.2.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6ab2lf_q')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-rsconf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', 'Summary(en_US) autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', '%description -l en_US autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf.src: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', 'Summary(en_US) autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf.src: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', '%description -l en_US autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', 'Summary(en_US) autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', '%description -l en_US autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rsconf-devel/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/LICENSE-APACHE rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rsconf-devel/LICENSE-MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/LICENSE-MIT rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_i64_value.c /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_i32_value.c rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_u64_value.c /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_u32_value.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 5 warnings, 12 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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-rsconf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', 'Summary(en_US) autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', '%description -l en_US autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', 'Summary(en_US) autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoconf', '%description -l en_US autoconf -> automaton') rust-rsconf+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rsconf-devel/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/LICENSE-APACHE rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rsconf-devel/LICENSE-MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/LICENSE-MIT rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_i64_value.c /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_i32_value.c rust-rsconf-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_u64_value.c /usr/share/cargo/registry/rsconf-0.2.2/snippets/get_u32_value.c 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rsconf/0.2.2/download#/rsconf-0.2.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd2af859f1af0401e7fc7577739c87b0d239d8a5da400d717183bca92336bcdc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd2af859f1af0401e7fc7577739c87b0d239d8a5da400d717183bca92336bcdc Requires -------- rust-rsconf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(cc/default) >= 1.0.69 with crate(cc/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-rsconf+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rsconf) Provides -------- rust-rsconf-devel: crate(rsconf) rust-rsconf-devel rust-rsconf+default-devel: crate(rsconf/default) rust-rsconf+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2348411-rust-rsconf/srpm/rust-rsconf.spec 2025-02-26 10:11:03.874906192 -0500 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2348411-rust-rsconf/srpm-unpacked/rust-rsconf.spec 2025-02-25 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 27 %bcond check 1 @@ -70,3 +80,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Feb 26 2025 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.2.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348411 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, R, Python, Perl, Java, Ocaml 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=2348411 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202348411%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
