Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-cdylib-link-lines.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-cdylib-link-lines-0.1.4-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Collection of link-lines useful to build correct cdylibs on targets. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87175451
LGTM. The one issue flagged by fedora-review seems to be because the license file is bundled inside %{crate_instdir} ? I wonder if we can somehow exclude that from tripping fedora-review up Anyway, the file listing looks sane. APPROVED FedoraReview on fix-lints [?] via 🐍 v3.10.6 took 2s ✦ ❯ rpm -qpl ./2087284-rust-cdylib-link-lines/results/rust-cdylib-link-lines-devel-0.1.4-1.fc38.noarch.rpm --docfiles -L /usr/share/cargo/registry/cdylib-link-lines-0.1.4/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/cdylib-link-lines-0.1.4/README.md FedoraReview on fix-lints [?] via 🐍 v3.10.6 ✦ ❯ rpm -qpl ./2087284-rust-cdylib-link-lines/results/rust-cdylib-link-lines-devel-0.1.4-1.fc38.noarch.rpm -L /usr/share/cargo/registry/cdylib-link-lines-0.1.4/LICENSE Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/cdylib-link- lines-0.1.4/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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", "MIT License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/pagure/FedoraReview/2087284-rust-cdylib-link- lines/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]: 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- cdylib-link-lines-devel , rust-cdylib-link-lines+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. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 rust-cdylib-link-lines+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/cdylib-link-lines/0.1.4/download#/cdylib-link-lines-0.1.4.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a317db7ea5b455731e51d7f632762716fa5c0b1098dcaa6221e55e2386d170f2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a317db7ea5b455731e51d7f632762716fa5c0b1098dcaa6221e55e2386d170f2 Requires -------- rust-cdylib-link-lines-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.79 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_derive/default) >= 1.0.79 with crate(serde_derive/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(toml/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(toml/default) < 0.6.0~) cargo rust-cdylib-link-lines+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(cdylib-link-lines) Provides -------- rust-cdylib-link-lines-devel: crate(cdylib-link-lines) rust-cdylib-link-lines-devel rust-cdylib-link-lines+default-devel: crate(cdylib-link-lines/default) rust-cdylib-link-lines+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (e357d19) last change: 2020-08-25 Command line :/home/michel/src/fedora/pagure/FedoraReview/try-fedora-review -b 2087284 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ruby, Python, Java, C/C++, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! > LGTM. The one issue flagged by fedora-review seems to be because the license file is bundled inside %{crate_instdir} ? I wonder if we can somehow exclude that from tripping fedora-review up The "duplicate files" error actually happens in two places. - RPM warns about it during the build process - fedora-review considers it an issue But as you pointed out, the resulting packages have correct contents (i.e. the files are only installed once and correctly marked as %doc / %license, respectively). https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46523 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46524 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46525 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46526
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-cdylib-link-lines
FEDORA-2022-849c9fa96e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-849c9fa96e
FEDORA-2022-849c9fa96e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-9f9cae61f3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9f9cae61f3
FEDORA-2022-9f9cae61f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.