Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-yrs.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-yrs-0.14.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: High performance implementation of the Yjs CRDT. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar This package depends on rust-lib0 and rust-atomic_refcell (both on review now).
Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-yrs.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-yrs-0.12.2-1.fc37.src.rpm I've decided to package an older version 0.12 because python-y-py needs it (directly) and there is currently no need for the latest version to be packaged.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5241594 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2153703-rust-yrs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05241594-rust-yrs/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-yrs.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-yrs-0.12.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Created attachment 1940394 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5241594 to 5290645
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5290645 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2153703-rust-yrs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05290645-rust-yrs/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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". 33 files have unknown license. [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 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-yrs-devel-0.12.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-yrs+default-devel-0.12.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-yrs-0.12.2-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3108qkua')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rust-yrs+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-yrs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-yrs-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/yrs-0.12.2/LICENSE 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s This looks like rust2rpm problem, not a problem in this package per se. 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-yrs+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-yrs-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-yrs-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/yrs-0.12.2/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Same. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/y-crdt/y-crdt/raw/release-v0.12.2/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b6d81564e9c46473907bd3c09d4d5ab0f21cfbe6ac35d46daf1bdb0423182a5b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6d81564e9c46473907bd3c09d4d5ab0f21cfbe6ac35d46daf1bdb0423182a5b https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/yrs/0.12.2/download#/yrs-0.12.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a232e4e529a06548e97270e6ec00afd5f14dae517b8df3c2a1a3f3a4558b7326 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a232e4e529a06548e97270e6ec00afd5f14dae517b8df3c2a1a3f3a4558b7326 Requires -------- rust-yrs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(lib0/default) >= 0.12.2 with crate(lib0/default) < 0.13.0~) (crate(rand/default) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rand/default) < 0.8.0~) (crate(smallstr/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(smallstr/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(smallstr/union) >= 0.2.0 with crate(smallstr/union) < 0.3.0~) cargo rust-yrs+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(yrs) Provides -------- rust-yrs-devel: crate(yrs) rust-yrs-devel rust-yrs+default-devel: crate(yrs/default) rust-yrs+default-devel Package APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-yrs
FEDORA-2023-17f4eee25e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-17f4eee25e
FEDORA-2023-17f4eee25e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-91e69ea326 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-91e69ea326
FEDORA-2023-91e69ea326 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Ups, I have referred to this ticket in my update by mistake. Sorry for the noise.