Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jamacku/rust-sarif-fmt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06297439-rust-sarif-fmt/rust-sarif-fmt.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jamacku/rust-sarif-fmt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06297439-rust-sarif-fmt/rust-sarif-fmt-0.4.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: View (pretty print) SARIF files in terminal Fedora Account System Username: jamacku
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6299671 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2232167-rust-sarif-fmt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06299671-rust-sarif-fmt/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 Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Successful COPR rebuild for all Fedora releases and archs: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lzaoral/test_builds/build/6324558/ Note that package cannot be built on any EPEL version. ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 sarif- fmt [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sarif-fmt-0.4.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-sarif-fmt-debugsource-0.4.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-sarif-fmt-0.4.1-1.fc40.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/tmpawi8z8pu')] checks: 31, packages: 3 sarif-fmt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sarif-fmt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 sarif-fmt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sarif-fmt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/sarif-fmt/0.4.1/download#/sarif-fmt-0.4.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19608ca9b5d55b76b35f7448ddcbb01f55bc20765769f663d2c3db8cde1c1db0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19608ca9b5d55b76b35f7448ddcbb01f55bc20765769f663d2c3db8cde1c1db0 Requires -------- sarif-fmt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-sarif-fmt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sarif-fmt: sarif-fmt sarif-fmt(x86-64) rust-sarif-fmt-debugsource: rust-sarif-fmt-debugsource rust-sarif-fmt-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-sarif-fmt --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Haskell, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Oops! I forgot one [!] in the previous comment. Of course, the package rebuilds fine: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sarif-fmt
FEDORA-2023-360e8e60bb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-360e8e60bb
FEDORA-2023-01a6426720 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-01a6426720
If you're not running tests, there's not really a point to building them, either. I would recommend to just switch off the check bcond at the top instead, and move the comment that tests can only be run in-tree there - this matches other Rust packages: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-serde_derive/blob/rawhide/f/rust-serde_derive.spec#_2-3
Thank you, I'll update the spec files.
FEDORA-2023-01a6426720 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-01a6426720 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-01a6426720 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-360e8e60bb 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-2023-360e8e60bb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-360e8e60bb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-01a6426720 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-360e8e60bb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.