Bug 2299173

COPR fedora review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07768158-rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-review/

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7773403
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07773403-rust-virtio-vsock/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.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07779116-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07779116-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

Excluded s390x architecture due to missing dependencies there.

fedora-review-service-build

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0) or
     bsd_-3-Clause_clause". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-
     vsock/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry,
     /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share,
     /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 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:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     virtio-vsock-devel , rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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-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/tmp0l10lo4e')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 2

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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)



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: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

There's a warning about `warning: rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID b6048b48: NOKEY`

also i think it may be better to use the doc macro in the license part
```
# dealing with missing license files in the crate
%license docs/LICENSE-APACHE
%license docs/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clause
```
other than that LGTM.

(In reply to Dorinda from comment #6)
> There's a warning about `warning: rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm:
> Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID b6048b48: NOKEY`

This is the COPR repo GPG key being used.


> also i think it may be better to use the doc macro in the license part
> ```
> # dealing with missing license files in the crate
> %license docs/LICENSE-APACHE
> %license docs/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clause
> ```
> other than that LGTM.

license files are required to be added using license macro to ensure they get installed even when the rpm is installed with `dnf install --nodocs` to comply with legal requirements.
It also allow to see them when querying the rpm with `rpm -q --licensefiles`.
More details at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/

Looking at above fedora review you pasted, I'm a bit worried about:

Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry,
     /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr

I'm checking this one, I'll push an update.

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #7)
> license files are required to be added using license macro to ensure they
> get installed even when the rpm is installed with `dnf install --nodocs` to
> comply with legal requirements.
> It also allow to see them when querying the rpm with `rpm -q --licensefiles`.
> More details at
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> LicensingGuidelines/

Sorry maybe it wasn't clear, I meant the path reference to use %{_docdir} instead `docs/`

(In reply to Dorinda from comment #9)

> Sorry maybe it wasn't clear, I meant the path reference to use %{_docdir}
> instead `docs/`

But %{_docdir} will resolve to /usr/share/doc within the target root while I'm referring to ./docs within the build directory.

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #10)
 
> But %{_docdir} will resolve to /usr/share/doc within the target root while
> I'm referring to ./docs within the build directory.

Right! you can leave it as it is then.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07781759-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07781759-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0) or
     bsd_-3-Clause_clause". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-
     vsock/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/cargo,
     /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/licenses,
     /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     virtio-vsock-devel , rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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 decba35020634fe290eb1bf7c800203c -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.r78s90e9:/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/tmp0rsa5igf')]
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 0.4 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: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Perl, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, PHP, Java, C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #8)
> Looking at above fedora review you pasted, I'm a bit worried about:
> 
> Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>      Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry,
>      /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr
> 
> I'm checking this one, I'll push an update.

This is a false positive from fedora-review. The directories *are* owned. Please don't own them again. 
If you think something generated by rust2rpm is wrong, please don't just monkey-patch it, but report a bug against rust2rpm.

Side note:
Pasting the fedora-review template isn't really helpful if the items with empty [ ] checkboxes aren't checked manually and filled [x] or [!].

Also, this is wrong and confusing:

> # dealing with missing license files in the crate
> mkdir -p ./docs
> cp -p %{SOURCE100} %{SOURCE101} ./docs/

Why copy them into a "docs" directory?
They should just be in the root directory.

Created attachment 2040348 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7773403 to 7783876

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7783876
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07783876-rust-virtio-vsock/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.

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #14)
> (In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #8)
> > Looking at above fedora review you pasted, I'm a bit worried about:
> > 
> > Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> >      Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry,
> >      /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr
> > 
> > I'm checking this one, I'll push an update.
> 
> This is a false positive from fedora-review. The directories *are* owned.
> Please don't own them again. 

I know, it's just the generated rpm is not requiring the packages that on those directories.

> If you think something generated by rust2rpm is wrong, please don't just
> monkey-patch it, but report a bug against rust2rpm.

Done: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/282

> Side note:
> Pasting the fedora-review template isn't really helpful if the items with
> empty [ ] checkboxes aren't checked manually and filled [x] or [!].

Yes. @Dorinda can you please complete manual checks in next review round?

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #15)
> Also, this is wrong and confusing:
> 
> > # dealing with missing license files in the crate
> > mkdir -p ./docs
> > cp -p %{SOURCE100} %{SOURCE101} ./docs/
> 
> Why copy them into a "docs" directory?
> They should just be in the root directory.

ok, pushing an update.

Created attachment 2040362 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7783876 to 7784056

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7784056
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07784056-rust-virtio-vsock/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.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07784055-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07784055-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07784055-rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-review/review.txt

Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/build/7784055/
fedora-review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07784055-rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-review/

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

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #18)
> (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #8)
> > > Looking at above fedora review you pasted, I'm a bit worried about:
> > > 
> > > Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> > >      Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry,
> > >      /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr
> > > 
> > > I'm checking this one, I'll push an update.
> > 
> > This is a false positive from fedora-review. The directories *are* owned.
> > Please don't own them again. 
> 
> I know, it's just the generated rpm is not requiring the packages that on
> those directories.

No, it appears you misunderstood.

The rust-*-devel packages have an automatically added hard "Requires: cargo", and "cargo" owns "/usr/share/cargo/registry".
The error printed by fedora-review error is just *wrong*.

> > If you think something generated by rust2rpm is wrong, please don't just
> > monkey-patch it, but report a bug against rust2rpm.
> 
> Done: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/282
> 
> > Side note:
> > Pasting the fedora-review template isn't really helpful if the items with
> > empty [ ] checkboxes aren't checked manually and filled [x] or [!].
> 
> Yes. @Dorinda can you please complete manual checks in next review round?

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #24)

> No, it appears you misunderstood.
> 
> The rust-*-devel packages have an automatically added hard "Requires:
> cargo", and "cargo" owns "/usr/share/cargo/registry".
> The error printed by fedora-review error is just *wrong*.

Ok, got it. I already investigated the issue within fedora-review and I'm trying to get it fixed there.
In the meanwhile, I've cleaned up the spec.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07788875-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07788875-rust-virtio-vsock/rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

the SPEC file and SRPM for the Package looks ready to me @decathorpe can you give your review? Thanks!

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-virtio-vsock

FEDORA-2024-452878792c (rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-452878792c

FEDORA-2024-452878792c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-452878792c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-452878792c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

One last thing - what is this about?

> %dir %{crate_instdir}
> %{crate_instdir}/src/
> %{crate_instdir}/*.toml
> %{crate_instdir}/.cargo-checksum.json
> %doc %{crate_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md
> %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md
> %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE
> %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clause

This is much too verbose and will break in future updates.
It should look like this:

"""
%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE
%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clause
%doc %{crate_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md
%doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md
%{crate_instdir}/
"""

If you did the above change to work around the RPM warning that some files are listed twice, then please don't.

The way rust2rpm generates this %files list is intentional, and works correctly. I have confirmation from RPM upstream that the way this is done is OK, and an acceptable workaround for limitations of RPM.

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #31)
> If you did the above change to work around the RPM warning that some files
> are listed twice, then please don't.
> 
> The way rust2rpm generates this %files list is intentional, and works
> correctly. I have confirmation from RPM upstream that the way this is done
> is OK, and an acceptable workaround for limitations of RPM.

I'll push a PR.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-virtio-vsock/pull-request/1

FEDORA-2024-452878792c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-452878792c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-452878792c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-452878792c (rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.