Bug 2282804

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jfernandez/bpftop/fedora-40-x86_64/07478663-rust-tracing-journald/rust-tracing-journald.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jfernandez/bpftop/fedora-40-x86_64/07478663-rust-tracing-journald/rust-tracing-journald-0.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7480270
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2282804-rust-tracing-journald/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07480270-rust-tracing-journald/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Hi, would you like to swap for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283042 ?

(In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #4)
> Hi, would you like to swap for
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283042 ?

I'm new to this and I'm not sure what you mean by swap.

Oh, OK. I meant a "review swap" as mentioned at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_contributor

If you think you can handle it then please review my package. I'll review yours in return then.

A review swap can only work if both parties involed are already in the "packager" group (which is not the case here).

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7)
> A review swap can only work if both parties involed are already in the
> "packager" group (which is not the case here).

Right. I was about to check that but forgot... Thanks for checking that for me.

BTW, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276462 got lost or is still on your TODO list?

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 (disabled with documented reason)
✅ latest version of the crate is packaged
✅ license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora
✅ license file is 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)

===

Let me (or your sponsor) know if you need help with the next steps.

FEDORA-2024-380b69b787 (rust-tracing-journald-0.3.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-380b69b787

FEDORA-2024-380b69b787 (rust-tracing-journald-0.3.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Hey, I noticed that you built rust-tracing-journald for both rawhide, f40, and f39, but didn't submit the f40 and f39 builds to "testing".
Was that intentional or just an oversight?

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #12)
> Hey, I noticed that you built rust-tracing-journald for both rawhide, f40,
> and f39, but didn't submit the f40 and f39 builds to "testing".
> Was that intentional or just an oversight?

It was an oversight. Thanks for the heads-up. I believe I submitted f40 and f39 to testing now.

Great, thanks! Looks good to me now.