Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-cap/rust-cap.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-cap/rust-cap-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Allocator that can track and limit memory usage. This crate provides a generic allocator that wraps another allocator, tracking memory usage and enabling limits to be set. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89358285
Unofficial review: 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/cap-0.1.0/LICENSE-APACHE.txt 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/rust-cap/2105887-rust- cap/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. [-]: %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- cap-devel , rust-cap+default-devel , rust-cap+nightly-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. [-]: %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) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/cap/0.1.0/download#/cap-0.1.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfb342bc1e95bfb9b3eb80593701657580f1606df8c5563003e6fc1cd8 f09ba1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfb342bc1e95bfb9b3eb80593701657580f1606df8c5563003e6fc1cd8 f09ba1 Requires -------- rust-cap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-cap+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(cap) rust-cap+nightly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(cap) Provides -------- rust-cap-devel: crate(cap) rust-cap-devel rust-cap+default-devel: crate(cap/default) rust-cap+default-devel rust-cap+nightly-devel: crate(cap/nightly) rust-cap+nightly-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2105887 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, fonts, R, Java, PHP, Python, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) Probably azure-pipelines.yml can be removed see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_excluding_unnecessary_files 2) Should a nightly build be provided? 3) A number of warnings that might be worth reporting upstream are generated: warning: unused attribute --> src/lib.rs:44:1 | 44 | #![allow()] | ^^^^^^^^^^^ help: remove this attribute | = note: `#[warn(unused_attributes)]` on by default = note: attribute `allow` with an empty list has no effect warning: use of deprecated associated function `std::sync::atomic::AtomicUsize::compare_and_swap `: Use `compare_exchange` or `compare_exchange_weak` instead --> src/lib.rs:105:7 | 105 | .compare_and_swap(limit_old, limit, Ordering::Relaxed) | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | = note: `#[warn(deprecated)]` on by default warning: use of deprecated associated function `std::sync::atomic::AtomicUsize::compare_and_swap `: Use `compare_exchange` or `compare_exchange_weak` instead --> src/lib.rs:113:7 | 113 | .compare_and_swap(limit_old, limit, Ordering::Relaxed) | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ warning: `cap` (lib) generated 3 warnings 4) The spec file seems similar to others for Rust, not sure why the following warnings are produced: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/cap-0.1.0/LICENSE-APACHE.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/cap-0.1.0/LICENSE-MIT.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/cap-0.1.0/README.md 5) Upstream does not have any tests, so probably that section can be removed from the spec file.
Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. - package builds and installs without errors on rawhide - test suite is run and all unit tests pass - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification (MIT or ASL 2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate - track package in koschei for all built branches === Two non-blocking things to consider: - Exclude azure-pipelines.yml from installed files (i.e. add `exclude = ["/azure-pipelines.yml"]` to the [package] section in Cargo.toml). This patch would be upstreamable. - Remove the "nightly" feature. If it's ever used by a dependent package, compilation will probably fail, anyway.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-cap 2105887 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46098 $ fedpkg request-branch --all-releases --repo rust-cap https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46099 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46100
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-cap
FEDORA-2022-b966ea3b19 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b966ea3b19
FEDORA-2022-b966ea3b19 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-72422576b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-72422576b4
FEDORA-2022-b83cc4f295 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b83cc4f295
FEDORA-2022-06c53dd4cf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-06c53dd4cf
FEDORA-2022-72422576b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-b83cc4f295 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-06c53dd4cf has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.