Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-snapbox.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-snapbox-0.4.14-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Snapshot testing toolbox. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563218 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246008-rust-snapbox/srpm-builds/06563218/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.
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108660671
Most of this is straight out of fedora-review, but you should check and feedback on the notes mentioned in the Issues section. Nothing breaking here, but it would nice to be able to remove that first warning and find out a bit more about whether the second one matters to this specific project before I hit approve. === 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/snapbox-0.4.14/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - RPMLint throws a load of no documentation warnings: snapbox.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snap-fixture rust-snapbox+color-auto-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+debug-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+color-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+detect-encoding-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+examples-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+json-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+document-features-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+structured-data-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+harness-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+cmd-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+path-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-snapbox+diff-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation snapbox.x86_64: W: invalid-license # FIXME ===== 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* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/seth/Nextcloud/fedora/review/review-rust- snapbox/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x ]: 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. [x ]: 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. [ x]: 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. [ 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1232 bytes in 1 files. [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 snapbox , rust-snapbox-devel , rust-snapbox+default-devel , rust-snapbox+cmd- devel , rust-snapbox+color-devel , rust-snapbox+color-auto-devel , rust-snapbox+debug-devel , rust-snapbox+detect-encoding-devel , rust- snapbox+diff-devel , rust-snapbox+document-features-devel , rust- snapbox+examples-devel , rust-snapbox+harness-devel , rust- snapbox+json-devel , rust-snapbox+path-devel , rust- snapbox+structured-data-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [x]: %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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Oh oh, good catch. I don't actually want the package to ship the snap-fixture binary. I've uploaded updated files at the same locations.
Looking better now. Warnings related to documentation issues are still present, but they don't seem major enough to block approval. Package is now ACCEPTED.
Thank you for the review! Yeah, the "rust-$crate+$feature-devel" packages are intentionally simple, since they only carry metadata and no real contents. So including documentation there would be counter-productive.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-snapbox
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-df2baaa37f