Bug 2322417

Created attachment 2054248 [details]
rust2rpm.toml

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8186334
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2322417-rust-derive_utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08186334-rust-derive_utils/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.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/derive_utils-0.14.2/CHANGELOG.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files


===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2322417-rust-
     derive_utils/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]: %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.
[x]: 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:
[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-
     derive_utils-devel , rust-derive_utils+default-devel
[?]: 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:
[!]: 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-derive_utils-devel-0.14.2-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-derive_utils+default-devel-0.14.2-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.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/tmpixlpjwqf')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-derive_utils+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', 'Summary(en_US) enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', '%description -l en_US enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils.src: E: spelling-error ('enums', 'Summary(en_US) enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils.src: E: spelling-error ('enums', '%description -l en_US enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', 'Summary(en_US) enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', '%description -l en_US enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
=================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.6 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-derive_utils-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', 'Summary(en_US) enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', '%description -l en_US enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', 'Summary(en_US) enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enums', '%description -l en_US enums -> menus, plenums')
rust-derive_utils+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/derive_utils/0.14.2/download#/derive_utils-0.14.2.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 65f152f4b8559c4da5d574bafc7af85454d706b4c5fe8b530d508cacbb6807ea
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65f152f4b8559c4da5d574bafc7af85454d706b4c5fe8b530d508cacbb6807ea


Requires
--------
rust-derive_utils-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(proc-macro2/default) >= 1.0.60 with crate(proc-macro2/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(quote/default) >= 1.0.25 with crate(quote/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(syn) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/clone-impls) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn/clone-impls) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/full) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn/full) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/parsing) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn/parsing) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/printing) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn/printing) < 3.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/proc-macro) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn/proc-macro) < 3.0.0~)
    cargo
    rust

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



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

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



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2322417-rust-derive_utils/srpm/rust-derive_utils.spec	2024-11-16 06:07:11.949536902 +0100
+++ /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2322417-rust-derive_utils/srpm-unpacked/rust-derive_utils.spec	2024-10-29 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -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 26
 %bcond_without check
@@ -72,3 +82,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Tue Oct 29 2024 John Doe <packager> - 0.14.2-1
+- 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 2322417
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

I have not found anything to fix or improve, good job.

Please proceed with package import.
Try to add new package to release-monitoring.org as well.

Thank you for the review, Petr

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

FEDORA-2024-a8aa51823f (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a8aa51823f

FEDORA-2024-a8aa51823f (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-07b240fa2d (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-07b240fa2d

FEDORA-2024-d187610348 (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d187610348

FEDORA-2024-656f4247b4 (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-656f4247b4

FEDORA-2024-d187610348 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-d187610348`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d187610348

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

FEDORA-2024-07b240fa2d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-07b240fa2d`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-07b240fa2d

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

FEDORA-2024-656f4247b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-656f4247b4`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-656f4247b4

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

FEDORA-2024-d187610348 (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-07b240fa2d (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-656f4247b4 (rust-derive_utils-0.14.2-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.