Bug 2415640

koji scratch build for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139040771

rust2rpm.toml configuration:

```
[package]
# https://github.com/latchset/kryoptic/commit/3a7fd6c
summary = "OpenSSL version 3+ bindings to modern EVP APIs"
cargo-toml-patch-comments = [
    "relax bindgen dependency to allow both v0.71 and v0.72",
]

[[package.extra-patches]]
number = 2
file = "0001-Unconditionally-link-with-system-OpenSSL.patch"

[requires]
build = ["pkgconfig(openssl) >= 3.0.0"]
lib = ["pkgconfig(openssl) >= 3.0.0"]
```

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9808395
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2415640-rust-ossl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09808395-rust-ossl/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

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

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

The spec file is generated using rust2rpm with the provided configuration file,
simplifying the review.

I noticed a few mentions of the Brainpool curves and recalled that these have
historically been a source of legal / IP issues. These have been resolved,
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/merge_requests/296, and in
any case I verified that this crate doesn’t actually implement any algorithms,
only exposes the implementations in OpenSSL, so there can’t be any concerns of
that nature in this package.

The patches are well-documented; the downstream-only patches are appropriate to
do downstream-only; and all changes appear to be correct and to do what they
claim to do.

Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

  N/A: This is a Rust library, and any C/C++ compiler dependency is taken care
  of via the crate(bindgen) dependency.

- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/ossl-1.3.1/LICENSE-2.0.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  Not a serious problem; due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm.

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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". 21
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/2415640-rust-ossl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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-
     ossl-devel , rust-ossl+default-devel , rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel
     , rust-ossl+dynamic-devel , rust-ossl+fips-devel , rust-ossl+log-devel
     , rust-ossl+ossl320-devel , rust-ossl+ossl350-devel , rust-
     ossl+rfc9580-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (tests pass)

[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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139067274

[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:
[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-ossl-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+default-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+dynamic-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+fips-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+log-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+ossl320-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+ossl350-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel-1.3.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-ossl-1.3.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpymhwche8')]
checks: 32, packages: 10

rust-ossl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-ossl.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 55 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 9

rust-ossl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 51 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/ossl/1.3.1/download#/ossl-1.3.1.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9904e51904eb47d8e09951565bdc36a684eb5dc699b438ad394bec211d539c54
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9904e51904eb47d8e09951565bdc36a684eb5dc699b438ad394bec211d539c54


Requires
--------
rust-ossl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(bindgen/default) >= 0.71.0 with crate(bindgen/default) < 0.73.0~)
    (crate(cfg-if/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(cfg-if/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(getrandom/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(getrandom/default) < 0.4.0~)
    (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.151 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~)
    (crate(pkg-config/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(pkg-config/default) < 0.4.0~)
    cargo
    pkgconfig(openssl)

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

rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(ossl)

rust-ossl+dynamic-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(ossl)

rust-ossl+fips-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(ossl)
    crate(ossl/ossl350)

rust-ossl+log-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(log) >= 0.4.27 with crate(log) < 0.5.0~)
    (crate(log/std) >= 0.4.27 with crate(log/std) < 0.5.0~)
    (crate(vsprintf/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(vsprintf/default) < 3.0.0~)
    cargo
    crate(ossl)

rust-ossl+ossl320-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(ossl)

rust-ossl+ossl350-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(ossl)

rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(ossl)



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

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

rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel:
    crate(ossl/dummy-integrity)
    rust-ossl+dummy-integrity-devel

rust-ossl+dynamic-devel:
    crate(ossl/dynamic)
    rust-ossl+dynamic-devel

rust-ossl+fips-devel:
    crate(ossl/fips)
    rust-ossl+fips-devel

rust-ossl+log-devel:
    crate(ossl/log)
    rust-ossl+log-devel

rust-ossl+ossl320-devel:
    crate(ossl/ossl320)
    rust-ossl+ossl320-devel

rust-ossl+ossl350-devel:
    crate(ossl/ossl350)
    rust-ossl+ossl350-devel

rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel:
    crate(ossl/rfc9580)
    rust-ossl+rfc9580-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2415640
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Perl, R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you for the review!

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

FEDORA-2025-bd71ec4a4a (rust-ossl-1.3.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bd71ec4a4a

FEDORA-2025-bd71ec4a4a has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-bd71ec4a4a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bd71ec4a4a

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

FEDORA-2025-3a9c13e657 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-3a9c13e657 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3a9c13e657

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