Spec URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rpm-rust-msru/blob/main/rust-msru.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rpm-rust-msru/blob/main/rust-msru-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: A Rust-safe library for interracting with Model Specific Registers in user-space. Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103294859
Can you link plain / "raw" files please? Otherwise automation will not be able to read them.
@decathorpe Do you mean something like this?: Spec URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rpm-rust-msru/raw/main/rust-msru.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rpm-rust-msru/raw/main/rust-msru-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: A Rust-safe library for interracting with Model Specific Registers in user-space. Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6173676 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222506-rust-msru/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06173676-rust-msru/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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #3) > Copr build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6173676 > (succeeded) > > Review template: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- > review-2222506-rust-msru/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06173676-rust-msru/fedora- > review/review.txt > > Please take a look if any issues were found. 404 error when attempting to check the link for issues. > > --- > 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6173729 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222506-rust-msru/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06173729-rust-msru/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.
(In reply to Tyler Fanelli from comment #4) > > 404 error when attempting to check the link for issues. That's probably because fedora-review has been broken since rawhide was switched to DNF5. I'll do the review manually. ================================================================================ Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. - package builds and installs without errors on rawhide ? test suite is run and all unit tests pass (there are no tests) - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification (Apache-2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. ================================================================================ Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer) ================================================================================ If you have a few spare minutes, it would be great if you could review another pending Rust package in return.
Side note: The <summary> in the bug title should usually be the package's summary *verbatim*, but that's not a hard requirement, as I'm not even sure the bug title affects anything. If you want to automate the creation of review requests, you could use the "fedora-create-review" command from the "fedora-review" package.
Second side note: s/interracting/interacting/ in both summary and description, but that typo comes from upstream. :)
Oh, I just noticed: the README states that this crate only works on x86_64? I wondered why the scratch build passed on all architectures, but then I saw that this crate doesn't even have any tests. :( If it is indeed the case that only x64_64 is supported, then you should probably add "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" to the spec file.
Apologies for the delay. I've changed the <summary> in the bug title to match that of the package's summary. I've also fixed the typos and set the ExclusiveArch to x86_64.
Thanks, looks good to me. Package was already approved. :)
@decathorpe Thanks. When can I expect it to appear as part of the packages? https://packages.fedoraproject.org/search?query=msru
Well ... as soon as you request the repo + import the package? It is approved, that means the remaining steps for adding it to the repo are self-service.
@decathorpe Great, thanks for pointing that out (first time bringing a new package to fedora) :)
No problem! Let me (or your sponsor) know if you have any questions wrt/ the required steps.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-msru
Package was added, thanks for the help! Closing.
Use of the %{?dist} tag is mandatory in Fedora https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-msru/pull-request/1
This package used rpmautospec during the review, this error happened during import.
@decathorpe The PR mentions the %{?dist} tag, but the actual spec file changes mention %autorelease and %autochangelog. Do they address that issue?
Yes. The spec file I reviewed here used rpmautospec (i.e. Release: %autorelease), which, when expanded, correctly contains the %dist tag. When you imported the package, something went wrong (not sure what). The imported files should have %autorelease and %autochangelog, not partially expanded versions of these macros.