Bug 2312556

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=123484125

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8023982
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2312556-rust-smol/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08023982-rust-smol/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.

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

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

The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the
review. The only difference ist:

  -%bcond_without check
  +# * crate ships no tests, only example code
  +%bcond_with check

Tests are disabled with appropriate justification. The examples are not
suitable for automated offline testing, and would bring in a huge collection of
unsatisfied and otherwise unnecessary dev-dependencies.

Because this crate just re-exports functionality from other crates and contains
very little code of its own, almost everything should have already been tested
in the packages for the crates that contain the actual implementations.

Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/smol-2.0.2/CHANGELOG.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  This is due to reasonable choices in rust2rpm and is not a serious problem.

===== 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",
     "*No copyright* MIT License". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2312556-rust-
     smol/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.
[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-
     smol-devel , rust-smol+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.

     There are no tests, but it is very likely that the package functions as
     described since it contains almost no code of its own.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     There are no actual tests, and compiling the examples is skipped with
     appropriate justification.

[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:
[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-smol-devel-2.0.2-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-smol+default-devel-2.0.2-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-smol-2.0.2-1.fc42.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/tmpg0iijq21')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-smol+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', 'Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', '%description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol.src: E: spelling-error ('async', 'Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol.src: E: spelling-error ('async', '%description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', 'Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', '%description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
===================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.2 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-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-smol+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', 'Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', '%description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', 'Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('async', '%description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync')
rust-smol+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/smol/2.0.2/download#/smol-2.0.2.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a33bd3e260892199c3ccfc487c88b2da2265080acb316cd920da72fdfd7c599f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a33bd3e260892199c3ccfc487c88b2da2265080acb316cd920da72fdfd7c599f


Requires
--------
rust-smol-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(async-channel/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(async-channel/default) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(async-executor/default) >= 1.5.0 with crate(async-executor/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(async-fs/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(async-fs/default) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(async-io/default) >= 2.1.0 with crate(async-io/default) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(async-lock/default) >= 3.0.0 with crate(async-lock/default) < 4.0.0~)
    (crate(async-net/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(async-net/default) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(async-process/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(async-process/default) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(blocking/default) >= 1.3.0 with crate(blocking/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(futures-lite/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(futures-lite/default) < 3.0.0~)
    cargo
    rust

rust-smol+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(smol)



Provides
--------
rust-smol-devel:
    crate(smol)
    rust-smol-devel

rust-smol+default-devel:
    crate(smol/default)
    rust-smol+default-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2312556
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Python, PHP, R, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you for the review!

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

FEDORA-2024-29845a9417 (rust-h3-0.0.6-1.fc42, rust-h3-quinn-0.0.7-1.fc42, and 4 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-29845a9417

FEDORA-2024-29845a9417 (rust-h3-0.0.6-1.fc42, rust-h3-quinn-0.0.7-1.fc42, and 4 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.