Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-splitty/rust-splitty.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-splitty/rust-splitty-0.1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: String splitter taking quotes into account. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80424183
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - License file is missing The License is MIT, so a license file is required. The license is available in the Github repo, but not in the crate. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2035564-rust- splitty/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- splitty-devel , rust-splitty+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. [-]: 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 (manually) ------------------ rust-splitty+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-splitty-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-splitty-devel/README.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/splitty-0.1.0/README.md === 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s === Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/splitty/0.1.0/download#/splitty-0.1.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8190298e89d4080e9c025535f73cacec4d51ff4495819dd8fdf1ae374c75ee80 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8190298e89d4080e9c025535f73cacec4d51ff4495819dd8fdf1ae374c75ee80 Requires -------- rust-splitty-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-splitty+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(splitty) Provides -------- rust-splitty-devel: crate(splitty) rust-splitty-devel rust-splitty+default-devel: crate(splitty/default) rust-splitty+default-devel
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-splitty/rust-splitty.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-splitty/rust-splitty-0.1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - include LICENSE file
This is embarrassing. Sorry for missing your update. The spec looks good, but due the delay, there is a new version: 1.0.1. You could also use the new %{crate_instdir} macro to simplify the spec a bit. Furthermore, is "ExclusiveArch:" still necessary?
(In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #4) > The spec looks good, but due the delay, there is a new version: 1.0.1. You > could also use the new %{crate_instdir} macro to simplify the spec a bit. > Furthermore, is "ExclusiveArch:" still necessary? All three valid points. 1. Package should be updated to latest version (if possible / compatible with broot). 2. Package should be regenerated with the latest version of rust2rpm (which will generate a spec that uses the new macros and no longer includes ExclusiveArch).
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.