Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sequoia-wot.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sequoia-wot-0.5.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: An implementation of OpenPGP's web of trust. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note: I am packaging version 0.5.0 on purpose, as that is the version of sequoia-wot that is currently required by the latest version of sequoia-octopus-librnp.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5785191 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2186839-rust-sequoia-wot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05785191-rust-sequoia-wot/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 If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
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/sequoia- wot-0.5.0/CONTRIBUTING.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Note: This is a limitation of RPM itself, not an actual issue. ===== 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* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 944 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kdas/code/fedora-review/2186839-rust-sequoia- wot/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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sequoia- wot , rust-sequoia-wot-devel , rust-sequoia-wot+default-devel , rust- sequoia-wot+crypto-nettle-devel , rust-sequoia-wot+crypto-openssl- devel [x]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. There are two minor issues pointed out by the rpmlint, but those are related to tests and upstream spec generation, ignored. rust-sequoia-wot-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/sequoia-wot-0.5.0/spec/Makefile 644 /usr/bin/make -f rust-sequoia-wot-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/sequoia-wot-0.5.0/tests/data/cliques/gensigs.sh 644 /bin/bash Approved.
Thanks for the review! I will remove the files we don't need from the package prior to building it for Fedora, I didn't notice them when I did the initial packaging.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sequoia-wot
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5a78f5c12d Builds for stable branches are still running.