Bug 2434112

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
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.

The repository link in Cargo.toml is broken; I found the correct repository and filed https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/pull/1 to fix it. You might consider correcting the repository link downstream with "rust2rpm -p".

Both MIT and Apache-2.0 license texts are missing from the published crate and the upstream repository. Both licenses require the text to be distributed, so you have to actually fix this. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text, and try working with upstream first.

Thanks.

https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/issues/2

SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
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.

As it says, https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm results in a 404 not found.
Can the upload be fixed?
( https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm works well )

Weird.

SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205132
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434112-rust-cond_sync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205132-rust-cond_sync/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


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

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-
     cond_sync/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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 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.
[-]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: 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-
     cond_sync-devel , rust-cond_sync+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.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

I suggest Apache2+MIT license files be added to the RPM package, while we wait for upstream to fix it in the crate.

Took me long enough that upstream fixed it.

SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync-0.2.2-1.fc45.src.rpm
SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-cond_sync/rust-cond_sync.spec

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10257897
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434112-rust-cond_sync/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10257897-rust-cond_sync/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE-APACHE is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.

It looks like you have edited the output of rust2rpm to remove these lines,

-%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE
-%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT

presumably to stop fedora-review from complaining about duplicate entries in the files list. (The second entry for each of these files is the recursive %{crate_instdir}/.) This “duplication,” though, is harmless (it doesn’t result in duplicate installed files), it’s due to a reasonable rust2rpm design decision (otherwise all the contents of %{crate_instdir}/ would have to be listed individually in order to mark only some of them as %license or %doc without duplication), and these lines are *necessary*, because license files *must* be marked with the %license directive: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text.

Ideally, the metadata patch would link https://github.com/emabee/rust-cond_sync/pull/1. In general, metadata patches should be documented in terms of what they do and why, and the upstream status (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/) of these changes. You can use package.cargo-toml-patch-comments in rust2rpm.toml for this.

You might consider adding exclude = ["scripts/**"] to Cargo.toml. The script scripts/qualify is really only for upstream development, it has the execute bit set, its shebang line expects it to run with https://github.com/DanielKeep/cargo-script, and the /usr/bin/env in the script is counter to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines. It seems cleaner to just omit it. You could even suggest the change upstream, since it’s not useful to people building the published crate with cargo, either.