Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-termbg/rust-termbg.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-termbg/rust-termbg-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Terminal background color detection. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72888302
I'll be taking a preliminary package review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (OK - using rpmautospec) ===== 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", "MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amz/Downloads/1987158-rust- termbg/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. Note: using rpmautospec [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in termbg , rust-termbg-devel , rust-termbg+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: Check is present, but is not used. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/termbg/0.3.0/download#/termbg-0.3.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db06b55c28c0b112ebb8b4abfea54e58bf6368095b16fb8953268faf3dc2e372 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db06b55c28c0b112ebb8b4abfea54e58bf6368095b16fb8953268faf3dc2e372 Requires -------- termbg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-termbg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(async-std/default) >= 1.9.0 with crate(async-std/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(crossterm/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(crossterm/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(thiserror/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(thiserror/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-termbg+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(termbg) rust-termbg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- termbg: termbg termbg(x86-64) rust-termbg-devel: crate(termbg) rust-termbg-devel rust-termbg+default-devel: crate(termbg/default) rust-termbg+default-devel rust-termbg-debugsource: rust-termbg-debugsource rust-termbg-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1987158 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Perl, Ocaml, R, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ===== Manual rpmlint == termbg-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm == termbg-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/termbg-0.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug termbg-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/termbg-0.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.debug termbg-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation termbg-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/bc/6b4008ce80df5d87b3bdea6557c72558167cf9 ../../../.build-id/bc/6b4008ce80df5d87b3bdea6557c72558167cf9 ===== Looks good. + Valid package name + Valid package version + Valid license (MIT or ASL 2.0) + License is specified correctly + License matches upstream specification + License file is included with %license in %files + Included patch is justified with comment + Builds latest version & installs correctly + No segfaults when running + fedora-review found no issues (except missing dist tag, but spec is making use of rpmautospec) + rpmlint only false positives + Package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines ====
Hi Davide, PACKAGE APPROVED!
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-termbg 1987158 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41032
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-termbg
FEDORA-2022-c404df0892 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c404df0892
FEDORA-2022-c404df0892 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.