Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-tester.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-tester-0.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Fork of Rust’s `test` crate that doesn’t require unstable language features. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== ISSUES ===== 1. The Summary line contains a Unicode apostrophe, rather than an ASCII apostrophe. That's why the spell checker looks for the word "doesn" without success. This is not necessarily a problem, as all of the tools (except the spell checker!) should be able to process Unicode these days. I just wanted to make sure that that was what you intended. 2. I'm not familiar with Rust packaging, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. I understand that the various subpackages all contain the same Cargo.toml file because they contain variations on its contents. Except they don't. They all contain exactly the same contents. If I only install rust-tester-devel, then the Cargo.toml file contains: [features] asm_black_box = [] capture = [] Is that right? Shouldn't rust-tester+asm_black_boxk-devel need to be installed before the first one shows up in [features], and rust-tester+capture-devel for the second? I'm not sure what effect the installation of rust-tester+default-devel is supposed to have, but it likewise doesn't appear to change anything when installed. ===== 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]: 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. [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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-tester-devel-0.7.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm rust-tester+default-devel-0.7.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel-0.7.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm rust-tester+capture-devel-0.7.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm rust-tester-0.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/tester-0.7.0/.cargo-checksum.json rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asm -> as, am, mas rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asm -> as, am, mas rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester+capture-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doesn -> does, does n rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/tester HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-tester-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/tester-0.7.0/.cargo-checksum.json 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/tester/0.7.0/download#/tester-0.7.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ee72ec31009a42b53de9a6b7d8f462b493ab3b1e4767bda1fcdbb52127f13b6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ee72ec31009a42b53de9a6b7d8f462b493ab3b1e4767bda1fcdbb52127f13b6c Requires -------- rust-tester-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(getopts/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(getopts/default) < 0.3.0) (crate(libc) >= 0.2.0 with crate(libc) < 0.3.0) (crate(term/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(term/default) < 0.7.0) cargo rust-tester+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(tester) rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(tester) rust-tester+capture-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(tester) Provides -------- rust-tester-devel: crate(tester) rust-tester-devel rust-tester+default-devel: crate(tester/default) rust-tester+default-devel rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel: crate(tester/asm_black_box) rust-tester+asm_black_box-devel rust-tester+capture-devel: crate(tester/capture) rust-tester+capture-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1783613 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --enablerepo=local --no-bootstrap-chroot --no-cleanup-after --no-clean Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ruby, fonts, Python, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Java, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
1. Fixed in place. 2. as far as I understand, the features subpackages have different Requires/Provides automatically generated by rust-packaging, based on Cargo.toml. The cargo.toml is the same except the optional dependencies for some features are Required or not.
Yeah, it is used to purely describe dependencies. If it doesn't add anything extra, it is basically empty package. We can apply some optimizations so that in this case it will be provided by main package, but it was easiest way...
Okay. This package is APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tester
Package is built in Rawhide. Thanks for the review!