Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-is-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-is-terminal-0.4.3-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Test whether a given stream is a terminal. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe NOTE: This is an un-retirement request for the existing rust-is-terminal package.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5548866 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2171848-rust-is-terminal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05548866-rust-is-terminal/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 If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Successful koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97763846
Looking at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-is-terminal it does not seem that the package is retired. Or am I seeing wrong?
I don't know what you expect to see? There are only "dead.paxkage" files in all branches except f36, so I'd say it's pretty retired ...
Hm, I thought that retired packages don't have an owner and a comment, specifying the reason for the retirement, is shown above the orphan button. But I guess that is wrong. Here is my package review, as always because this was generated with rust2rpm the review is very simple. Package APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-is-terminal See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names --> This should not be a problem as this is a un-retire package request. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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* MIT License", "MIT License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-is- terminal/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 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 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. [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-is- terminal-devel , rust-is-terminal+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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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-is-terminal-devel-0.4.3-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-is-terminal+default-devel-0.4.3-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-is-terminal-0.4.3-1.fc39.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/tmpt5om1p53')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rust-is-terminal+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 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-is-terminal+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/is-terminal/0.4.3/download#/is-terminal-0.4.3.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 22e18b0a45d56fe973d6db23972bf5bc46f988a4a2385deac9cc29572f09daef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 22e18b0a45d56fe973d6db23972bf5bc46f988a4a2385deac9cc29572f09daef Requires -------- rust-is-terminal-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(io-lifetimes/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/default) >= 0.36.4 with crate(rustix/default) < 0.37.0~) (crate(rustix/termios) >= 0.36.4 with crate(rustix/termios) < 0.37.0~) cargo rust-is-terminal+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(is-terminal) Provides -------- rust-is-terminal-devel: crate(is-terminal) rust-is-terminal-devel rust-is-terminal+default-devel: crate(is-terminal/default) rust-is-terminal+default-devel
Thanks for the review! Unretirement request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11300
As for the UI on src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-is-terminal: The package is not orphaned (I am still the maintainer of record, because the package is still present on fedora 36), which is why there is no "unmaintained" notice under the package name, nor a reason for being orphaned / a "Take" button instead of an "Orphan" button. TL;DR: The package is retired from f37+, but not orphaned. The latter is not necessarily a prerequisite for the former :)
This has been successfully built.