Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcajka/zerocopy-derive/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06260077-rust-zerocopy/rust-zerocopy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcajka/zerocopy-derive/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06260077-rust-zerocopy/rust-zerocopy-0.6.3-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Utilities for zero-copy parsing and serialization Fedora Account System Username: jcajka
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6263160 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231013-rust-zerocopy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06263160-rust-zerocopy/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.
Build failure is due to the issues with GPG in f39 repos and it would fail anyway as it BRs the zerocopy-derive, its review is in the depending bug.
SRPM URL is now HTTP 404, please update.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcajka/zerocopy-derive/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06304635-rust-zerocopy/rust-zerocopy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcajka/zerocopy-derive/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06304635-rust-zerocopy/rust-zerocopy-0.6.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Sorry, I have forgotten to update the links after the fixes similar to the one for zerocopy-derive. In same way I would like to keep the unpinning patch, just to keep the record finding re. failing tests and possible staring point for proper fix.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6348640 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231013-rust-zerocopy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06348640-rust-zerocopy/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.
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 (tests are disabled, reason is documented) ? latest version of the crate is packaged (I assume you need v0.6, so this is fine) - license matches upstream specification (BSD-2-Clause) 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) === Three non-blocking comments: 1. You need to exclude generate-readme.sh from the installed files. Otherwise the package will have an unnecessary generated dependency on /usr/bin/bash. You can either patch Cargo.toml to add an "exclude" setting, or use "%exclude %{crate_instdir}/generate-readme.sh" in the %files list of the -devel subpackage. 2. If you patch Cargo.toml, you MUST do that by passing the "-p" flag to "rust2rpm". Patches to Cargo.toml can affect spec file generation, and only changes made by generating a patch with "rust2rpm -p" can be taken into account (obviously). 3. Note that you messed up the spec file for rust-zerocopy-derive on import. You need to import the *unmodified* spec file (i.e. not the one from inside the SRPM / not processed by rpmautospec). Please take care of that when importing this package. I fixed the rust-zerocopy-derive issue: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-zerocopy-derive/c/507dd2022c6e91fd1748e1862ab6ad2ef8e212d9?branch=rawhide === PS: I will likely request stable dist-git branches of zerocopy / zerocopy-derive at some point, since it will allow us to enable currently disabled optional features of a handful of other crates. PPS: I wonder what you are packaging this crate for?
Thank you very much for quick review. For rather exotic package of s390utils ;). I will try to make update as soon as possible to 0.70, but it really hangs on the s390utils.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-zerocopy
Nitpick on the rpmautospec, its seems that the packaging tooling it not really working well with it, i.e. fedpkg import just cryptically fails. I don't have atm that error handy. Is there some plan to add support or more clear error message(pointing to how to do the import properly)? Should I open an bug for it?
(In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #7) > Thank you very much for quick review. For rather exotic package of s390utils > ;). I will try to make update as soon as possible to 0.70, but it really > hangs on the s390utils. Ah, interesting. Another project that started using Rust for some of its code :) Sure. There's no need to update yet. As far as I can tell, almost all users of the zerocopy crate still depend on v0.6, so updating to v0.7 and adding a compat package for v0.6 would be counter-productive. (In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #9) > Nitpick on the rpmautospec, its seems that the packaging tooling it not > really working well with it, i.e. fedpkg import just cryptically fails. I > don't have atm that error handy. Is there some plan to add support or more > clear error message(pointing to how to do the import properly)? Should I > open an bug for it? Yeah, "fedpkg import" is one of the few remaining things that don't work well with rpmautospec. For now, just copy-paste and "git add" the original / unmodified (!) spec, source file(s) and patch(es) (if any) manually. The error message for "fedpkg import" was added because importing an SRPM that was already processed will lead to a package that no longer uses rpmautospec at all ... The issue about how to handle rpmautospec support in "fedpkg import" is here: https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/641 / https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/pull-request/292
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #10) > (In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #7) > > Thank you very much for quick review. For rather exotic package of s390utils > > ;). I will try to make update as soon as possible to 0.70, but it really > > hangs on the s390utils. > > Ah, interesting. Another project that started using Rust for some of its > code :) > > Sure. There's no need to update yet. As far as I can tell, almost all users > of the zerocopy crate still depend on v0.6, so updating to v0.7 and adding a > compat package for v0.6 would be counter-productive. > > (In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #9) > > Nitpick on the rpmautospec, its seems that the packaging tooling it not > > really working well with it, i.e. fedpkg import just cryptically fails. I > > don't have atm that error handy. Is there some plan to add support or more > > clear error message(pointing to how to do the import properly)? Should I > > open an bug for it? > > Yeah, "fedpkg import" is one of the few remaining things that don't work > well with rpmautospec. > For now, just copy-paste and "git add" the original / unmodified (!) spec, > source file(s) and patch(es) (if any) manually. > Ack, I have tried, but I guess I have missed the autochangelog. I will fix it with next build. > The error message for "fedpkg import" was added because importing an SRPM > that was already processed will lead to a package that no longer uses > rpmautospec at all ... > The issue about how to handle rpmautospec support in "fedpkg import" is here: > https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/641 / > https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/pull-request/292 Thanks.