SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-serde_tuple_macros.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-serde_tuple_macros-0.5.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: De/serialize structs with named fields as array of values. koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100974872 FAS: pbrobinson Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5907587 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2196848-rust-serde_tuple_macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05907587-rust-serde_tuple_macros/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.
Two quick comments from Rust packaging POV: > # A patch to work around the following pointless rpm build failure > # *** ERROR: ./usr/share/cargo/registry/serde_tuple_macros-0.5.0/src/lib.rs has shebang which doesn't start with '/' ([recursion_limit = "4096"]) This is actually not a pointless failure, the src/lib.rs file is just marked as executable when it shouldn't be, which triggers the script processing. Fixing it doesn't even need a patch, doing "chmod -x src/lib.rs" in %prep is enough. On the other hand, the fact that the project doesn't have a LICENSE file (neither in published sources, nor in the upstream GitHub project) is indeed a problem for MIT license.
> This is actually not a pointless failure, the src/lib.rs file is just marked > as executable when it shouldn't be, which triggers the script processing. > Fixing it doesn't even need a patch, doing "chmod -x src/lib.rs" in %prep is > enough. Fair enough, although the error could probably be more useful > On the other hand, the fact that the project doesn't have a LICENSE file > (neither in published sources, nor in the upstream GitHub project) is indeed > a problem for MIT license. I've now reported that upstream and added the ticket as a comment (I thought rust2rpm used to warn on this, may be misremembering).
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #3) > > This is actually not a pointless failure, the src/lib.rs file is just marked > > as executable when it shouldn't be, which triggers the script processing. > > Fixing it doesn't even need a patch, doing "chmod -x src/lib.rs" in %prep is > > enough. > > Fair enough, although the error could probably be more useful I agree 😅 > > On the other hand, the fact that the project doesn't have a LICENSE file > > (neither in published sources, nor in the upstream GitHub project) is indeed > > a problem for MIT license. > > I've now reported that upstream and added the ticket as a comment (I thought > rust2rpm used to warn on this, may be misremembering). Thanks! In fact, rust2rpm *does* warn, in two places: It prints a red error message to stderr when there's no license files detected, and it inserts a "# FIXME: no license files detected" comment into the spec file.
Only issue is the missing license, but I see the issue has been opened upstream. Looks good, approved. Review posted below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: 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 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-serde_tuple_macros-devel-0.5.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-serde_tuple_macros+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-serde_tuple_macros-0.5.0-1.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/tmpth2w94dd')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rust-serde_tuple_macros+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-serde_tuple_macros-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ==================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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-serde_tuple_macros+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-serde_tuple_macros-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/serde_tuple_macros/0.5.0/download#/serde_tuple_macros-0.5.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4076151d1a2b688e25aaf236997933c66e18b870d0369f8b248b8ab2be630d7e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4076151d1a2b688e25aaf236997933c66e18b870d0369f8b248b8ab2be630d7e Requires -------- rust-serde_tuple_macros-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(proc-macro2/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(proc-macro2/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(quote/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(quote/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(syn/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(syn/extra-traits) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/extra-traits) < 2.0.0~) (crate(syn/full) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/full) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-serde_tuple_macros+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(serde_tuple_macros) Provides -------- rust-serde_tuple_macros-devel: crate(serde_tuple_macros) rust-serde_tuple_macros-devel rust-serde_tuple_macros+default-devel: crate(serde_tuple_macros/default) rust-serde_tuple_macros+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2196848 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, R, Perl, Java, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-serde_tuple_macros
FEDORA-2023-a78cee0bbc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a78cee0bbc
FEDORA-2023-a78cee0bbc has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a78cee0bbc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a78cee0bbc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-a78cee0bbc has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.