Bug 2250466

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6666956
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2250466-rust-euclid/srpm-builds/06666956/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Not sure why that COPR failed, mine works fine and the Koji build works fine also. My COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/leo/rpms-wip/build/6666813/

[fedora-review-service-build] Rebuild please.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6667044
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2250466-rust-euclid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06667044-rust-euclid/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-euclid
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

(Updated the bug's title to match the package's summary.)

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide
- test suite is run and all unit tests pass
- latest version of the crate is packaged
- license matches upstream specification (MIT OR Apache-2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora
- license files are included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

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: 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)

===

I would recommend that you look into using "fedora-create-review" tool (from the "fedora-review" package) for creating your review tickets.
It automatically creates the bug from the template and uploads the files to your shared Fedora web space, and would have prevented the bug title / package summary mismatch.

If you have time for it, it would be great if you could review one of my own pending packages.
Please let me (or your sponsor) know if you have any questions regarding importing / building this package and / or filing the unretirement request.

Why did you change the assignee?
That is wrong for a review ticket - the assignee must match the account who set the fedora-review flag.

FEDORA-2023-b005c34e8c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b005c34e8c

FEDORA-2023-b005c34e8c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.