Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/rust-diskus.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/rust-diskus-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Minimal, fast alternative to 'du -sh' Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/CHANGELOG.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Rpm identifies 4 files that are listed twice: CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE-APACHE, LICENSE_MIT, and README.md. See the end of build.log. The issue is that %files devel has this: %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT %doc %{crate_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md %{crate_instdir}/ That final %{crate_instdir}/ implicitly includes every file inside the directory, leading to the duplicate warnings. Here is one way to avoid the duplication: %files devel %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT %doc %{crate_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md %dir %{crate_instdir}/ %{crate_instdir}/.cargo-checksum.json %{crate_instdir}/Cargo.toml %{crate_instdir}/doc/ %{crate_instdir}/src/ %{crate_instdir}/tests/ - The man page (diskus.1) is installed in the wrong package and the wrong place. Move it from the devel subpackage to the diskus package, and put it in %{_mandir}/man1. ===== 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", "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License 2.0". 14 files have unknown license. [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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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. [?]: 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) This is due to the use of rpmautospec, and can be ignored. [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. Rpmlint ------- diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/diskus-0.7.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug rust-diskus.src: W: strange-permission rust-diskus.spec 600 diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/diskus-0.7.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug diskus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diskus diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation diskus.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 diskus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/89/9263db00523cc7172070642ab5117c2f7b2694 ../../../.build-id/89/9263db00523cc7172070642ab5117c2f7b2694 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- diskus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diskus rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation rust-diskus+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 diskus.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-diskus-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/diskus/0.7.0/download#/diskus-0.7.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 53d9d378e8d78b3d5a8c45dfe9757d7dd8efeae9c1662526c543d0d406a7b67c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53d9d378e8d78b3d5a8c45dfe9757d7dd8efeae9c1662526c543d0d406a7b67c Requires -------- diskus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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-diskus-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(atty/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(atty/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(clap/color) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/color) < 3.0.0~) (crate(clap/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(clap/suggestions) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/suggestions) < 3.0.0~) (crate(clap/wrap_help) >= 2.0.0 with crate(clap/wrap_help) < 3.0.0~) (crate(crossbeam-channel/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(crossbeam-channel/default) < 0.6.0~) (crate(humansize/default) >= 1.1.0 with crate(humansize/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(num-format/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(num-format/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(num_cpus/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(num_cpus/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rayon/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(rayon/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-diskus+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(diskus) rust-diskus-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- diskus: diskus diskus(x86-64) rust-diskus-devel: crate(diskus) rust-diskus-devel rust-diskus+default-devel: crate(diskus/default) rust-diskus+default-devel rust-diskus-debugsource: rust-diskus-debugsource rust-diskus-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/2121250-rust-diskus/srpm/rust-diskus.spec 2022-08-27 09:52:23.963011971 -0600 +++ /home/jamesjer/2121250-rust-diskus/srpm-unpacked/rust-diskus.spec 2022-08-24 18:18:21.000000000 -0600 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-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*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 22 %bcond_without check @@ -82,3 +91,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Thu Aug 25 2022 John Doe <packager> 0.7.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121250 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, Ruby, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #1) > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: > /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/CHANGELOG.md > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_duplicate_files > > Rpm identifies 4 files that are listed twice: CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE-APACHE, > LICENSE_MIT, and README.md. See the end of build.log. The issue is that > %files devel has this: This warning is a false positive. The resulting packages will not include duplicates and the correct files will be marked as %doc and %license, respectively. Also, in case you see problems with spec files that are generated by rust2rpm, please don't just try to work around them in spec files, but actually file issues against rust2rpm so things can either 1) be fixed for *all* Future packages, or 2) explained that some warnings are actually wrong and safe to ignore +as is the case here).
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > This warning is a false positive. The resulting packages will not include > duplicates and the correct files will be marked as %doc and %license, > respectively. It isn't a false positive. The spec file really does list those files twice, hence the warnings from rpm. See the end of the build log: RPM build warnings: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/CHANGELOG.md File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/LICENSE-APACHE File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/LICENSE-MIT File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/diskus-0.7.0/README.md The RPM code has this comment just above where the warning is issued: /* Two entries for the same file found, merge the entries. */ If the merging is order-independent and deterministic, then it may be okay to simply ignore the warning. However, if you want to know for sure what the binary RPM will contain in spite of future changes to RPM, a modification such as the one I suggested will do that.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > Also, in case you see problems with spec files that are generated by > rust2rpm, please don't just try to work around them in spec files, but > actually file issues against rust2rpm so things can either 1) be fixed for > *all* Future packages, or 2) explained that some warnings are actually wrong > and safe to ignore +as is the case here). I've never used rust2rpm, so I know next to nothing about it. Are you suggesting that the entire spec file should be automatically generated, with no tweaks by a packager? So the man page in the wrong package and the wrong path in this case represents a bug in rust2rpm?
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4) > I've never used rust2rpm, so I know next to nothing about it. Fair enough. It helps to compare the submitted spec file (which might contain manual modifications) with one that is generated by rust2rpm (i.e. without manual modifications). And any manual changes would need to make sense. > Are you suggesting that the entire spec file should be automatically generated, with no tweaks by a packager? Yes and no. The "core" of the package should be correctly and successfully generated by running rust2rpm. But there are cases where the packager needs to make manual adjustments on top of that, for example, disabling tests that don't work, or packaging additional files that aren't tracked by Cargo.toml package metadata (man pages, shell completions, etc.). Additionally, for Rust binaries, the license tag for the subpackage that contains the binary needs to be manually populated according to all statically linked dependencies. > So the man page in the wrong package and the wrong path in this case represents a bug in rust2rpm? No. Manual pages are not automatically added by rust2rpm, so in this case, the packager has added it to the wrong subpackage.
Please indicate whether you are still interested in this package.
Yes, but I've not had a chance to circle back to it and honestly I'd kind of forgotten. I can probably get back to work on it this week but if you @decathorpe are interested in continuing on it that's fine too.
I'm not particularly interested in diskus, I was just processing all pending review tickets for Rust projects and saw that this one had stalled. There's no need to hurry, if you want to continue with this request, that's fine. I was just making sure nothing is falling through the cracks. :)
> I was just making sure nothing is falling through the cracks. It was, but now it's not. Thanks! :)
*three-months-later-ping*
*four-months-later-ping*
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.