Spec URL: https://yizhengxie.fedorapeople.org/rust-pwd.spec SRPM URL: https://yizhengxie.fedorapeople.org/rust-pwd-1.3.1-2.fc37.src.rpm Description: Safe interface to pwd.h. Fedora Account System Username: yizhengxie
SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yizhengxie/rust-nu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04571475-rust-pwd/rust-pwd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yizhengxie/rust-nu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04571475-rust-pwd/rust-pwd-1.3.1-2.fc37.src.rpm COPR build and review templates: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yizhengxie/rust-nu/build/4571475/
(In reply to Yizheng Xie from comment #1) > SPEC URL: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yizhengxie/rust-nu/fedora- > rawhide-x86_64/04571475-rust-pwd/rust-pwd.spec > SRPM URL: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yizhengxie/rust-nu/fedora- > rawhide-x86_64/04571475-rust-pwd/rust-pwd-1.3.1-2.fc37.src.rpm > COPR build and review templates: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yizhengxie/rust-nu/build/4571475/ COPR build and review templates: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yizhengxie/rust-nu/build/4573274/
It appears you have linked a .spec file from an SRPM that was already mangled by rpmautospec. That's usually not a good idea for a package review, and using a preprocessed SRPM file like that will also cause creation of a corrupted / broken .spec file when using "fedpkg import". > # FIXME: Upstream uses unknown SPDX tag CC-PDDC! Usually FIXME items should be addressed before submitting a package for review. ;) In this instance, this license (CC-PDDC / Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication and Certification) is neither considered "free" by the FSF nor is it an OSI-approved license according its listing on the SPDX website. It is also not the Fedora list of "good" licenses, either (though similar licenses are). You will need to inquire with Fedora legal whether this license can be considered acceptable, and if it can be added to the list of "good" licenses before this package can be imported.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > It appears you have linked a .spec file from an SRPM that was already > mangled by rpmautospec. That's usually not a good idea for a package review, > and using a preprocessed SRPM file like that will also cause creation of a > corrupted / broken .spec file when using "fedpkg import". > yeah, in this case I think the original spec in fedorapeople.org is better. Looks like fedora-create-review choked before actually uploading it though. > > # FIXME: Upstream uses unknown SPDX tag CC-PDDC! > > Usually FIXME items should be addressed before submitting a package for > review. ;) > > In this instance, this license (CC-PDDC / Creative Commons Public Domain > Dedication and Certification) is neither considered "free" by the FSF nor is > it an OSI-approved license according its listing on the SPDX website. > > It is also not the Fedora list of "good" licenses, either (though similar > licenses are). You will need to inquire with Fedora legal whether this > license can be considered acceptable, and if it can be added to the list of > "good" licenses before this package can be imported. That's... problematic. We should see if this is a hard dependency of nu-path or not, and double check with upstream.
One easy way out is to drop back to 1.3.0 which is under Apache/MIT like most Rust crates: https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/pwd/-/commit/8375b41379c6f7b2a3b7a675d6b892b27faa44fd But the move to 'public domain dedication' sounds like this package becoming abandonware, so following up with the Nu people and asking them to reconsider using this is probably not a bad idea.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > It appears you have linked a .spec file from an SRPM that was already > mangled by rpmautospec. That's usually not a good idea for a package review, > and using a preprocessed SRPM file like that will also cause creation of a > corrupted / broken .spec file when using "fedpkg import". > > > # FIXME: Upstream uses unknown SPDX tag CC-PDDC! > > Usually FIXME items should be addressed before submitting a package for > review. ;) > > In this instance, this license (CC-PDDC / Creative Commons Public Domain > Dedication and Certification) is neither considered "free" by the FSF nor is > it an OSI-approved license according its listing on the SPDX website. > > It is also not the Fedora list of "good" licenses, either (though similar > licenses are). You will need to inquire with Fedora legal whether this > license can be considered acceptable, and if it can be added to the list of > "good" licenses before this package can be imported. Isn't this actually just "Public Domain" which is on our list though? I'll start a conversation with legal - regardless of whether we go ahead with this, it might be good to clarify anyway.
asked legal: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/WGJQI7F7UN5MRVR74FGR6XWGPBWMEROB/
CC-PDDC addded to fedora-license-data https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/17 Updated spec and srpm in fedorapeople.org: Spec URL: https://yizhengxie.fedorapeople.org/rust-pwd.spec SRPM URL: https://yizhengxie.fedorapeople.org/rust-pwd-1.3.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Copr build and review templates: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yizhengxie/rust-pwd/build/4636005/
Spec generated using rust2rpm, simplifying review All looks good. note that the spec in the SRPM doesn't have %autochangelog, and seems to be generated before committing. The spec submitted looks good, make sure you check in that one. 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/pwd-1.3.1/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". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2101580-rust-pwd/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- pwd-devel , rust-pwd+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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/pwd/1.3.1/download#/pwd-1.3.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9ca0304857594109dca88140120427c7a65027be6b77d86a5938588e79cb07b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9ca0304857594109dca88140120427c7a65027be6b77d86a5938588e79cb07b Requires -------- rust-pwd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(failure/default) >= 0.1.1 with crate(failure/default) < 0.2.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo rust-pwd+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(pwd) Provides -------- rust-pwd-devel: crate(pwd) rust-pwd-devel rust-pwd+default-devel: crate(pwd/default) rust-pwd+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2101580-rust-pwd/srpm/rust-pwd.spec 2022-07-20 16:28:14.953648999 -0500 +++ /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2101580-rust-pwd/srpm-unpacked/rust-pwd.spec 2022-07-15 12:17:02.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 21 %bcond_without check @@ -69,3 +78,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Jul 15 2022 John Doe <packager> 1.3.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2101580 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! > fedpkg request-repo rust-pwd 2101580 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45909 > fedpkg request-branch --repo rust-pwd --all-releases https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45910 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45911
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pwd
It appears that this package has been built successfully? If that is the case, please remember to close this bug.
Though I am slightly confused: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2030885 The build in koji succeeded, but it hasn't been submitted to bodhi, and is not available in repositories. What happened?
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #13) > Though I am slightly confused: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2030885 > > The build in koji succeeded, but it hasn't been submitted to bodhi, and is > not available in repositories. > What happened? Hi Fabio, yes I did build it in Koji but haven't submitted to bodhi, since I am trying to chain-build an update set rust-nu-* with new package rust-pwd but just happen to build rust-pwd first. I will finish updating rust-nu-* and submit them (as well as rust-pwd) to bodhi today. I am sorry for the confusing work.
Given that this is a new package, chain-building it is really not necessary, as it could not have broken any existing builds. You could have just submitted it to rawhide directly (or into a side-tag), where it would've been available for subsequent builds after a few minutes. Right now, it's in an unreferenced limbo state where it is not usable by any builds, and will eventually be garbage collected.
FEDORA-2022-7390708dd0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7390708dd0
FEDORA-2022-8049c55e39 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8049c55e39
FEDORA-2022-b0e77a8da2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b0e77a8da2
FEDORA-2022-7390708dd0 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-7390708dd0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7390708dd0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-8049c55e39 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-8049c55e39 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8049c55e39 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-7390708dd0 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-8049c55e39 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.