Bug 2138143 - Review Request: rust-duct_sh - Sub-crate for the sh function, formerly in duct
Summary: Review Request: rust-duct_sh - Sub-crate for the sh function, formerly in duct
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pavel Šimovec
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-10-27 11:44 UTC by Jan Macku
Modified: 2023-05-02 22:00 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-05-02 22:00:34 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
psimovec: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Pavel Šimovec 2022-10-27 15:35:41 UTC
Please check Issues automatically generated by fedora-review.
Could You explain why it is alright to ship file 'duct_sh-0.13.5/src/lib.rs' without a license? 
Otherwise I have no complaints. 


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/duct_sh-0.13.5/README.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license.
duct_sh-0.13.5/.cargo_vcs_info.json
duct_sh-0.13.5/Cargo.toml
duct_sh-0.13.5/Cargo.toml.orig
duct_sh-0.13.5/README.md
duct_sh-0.13.5/src/lib.rs
[?]: 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.
[X]: 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]: 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:
[X]: 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-
     duct_sh-devel , rust-duct_sh+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
           Sources are not verified with gpgverify, but it is the same in
           example in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/
[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: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

rust-duct_sh+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-duct_sh-devel.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/cargo/registry/duct_sh-0.13.5/duct_sh/LICENSE ../LICENSE
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Comment 2 Jan Macku 2022-10-31 11:58:52 UTC
Thank you Pavel for your review, I have updated the spec file and SRPM, they should now have the correct LICENSE. Could you please have another look?

Comment 3 Pavel Šimovec 2022-11-02 11:51:32 UTC
The license looks good,
but now fedora-review started complaining about the LICENSE being duplicate file.
Could you check it?
Not sure if it is important, if you think it is not a problem I will approve the package.

Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/duct_sh-0.13.5/LICENSE
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

Comment 4 Jan Macku 2022-11-02 12:27:06 UTC
I think this is ok, I saw this "Note" in more of my rust packages and all of them had been approved. Also, when you inspect unpacked rpm, there is only one instance of LICENSE.

Comment 5 Fabio Valentini 2022-11-02 12:40:48 UTC
(In reply to Jan Macku from comment #4)
> I think this is ok, I saw this "Note" in more of my rust packages and all of
> them had been approved. Also, when you inspect unpacked rpm, there is only
> one instance of LICENSE.

Yes, that warning is a false positive. The built RPMs will contain the correct files and have the correct files marked as %license.

Comment 6 Pavel Šimovec 2022-11-02 15:17:11 UTC
Thanks for the info,
LGTM now

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-11-03 13:17:38 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-duct_sh

Comment 8 Fabio Valentini 2023-05-02 22:00:34 UTC
This package has been imported and built months ago, closing ...


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.