Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rustup.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rustup-1.26.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Manage multiple rust installations with ease. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109584024
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6695879 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2251579-rustup/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06695879-rustup/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.
Can't seem to build this on my Rawhide system. ``` # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 4e380249452243e7b96cf47b8ff9e7f4 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.u4uy79ht:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf-3 builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 40 --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/SRPMS/rustup-1.26.0-1.fc40.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk, versionlock fedora 22 kB/s | 21 kB 00:00 Package cargo-rpm-macros-25.2-2.fc40.noarch is already installed. Error: Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(remove_dir_all/default) >= 0.8.1 with crate(remove_dir_all/default) < 0.9.0~) Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(remove_dir_all/parallel) >= 0.8.1 with crate(remove_dir_all/parallel) < 0.9.0~) (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) ```
If you used mock, then you have to pass "--enablerepo local" to mock. The required crate has only recently been updated and did not land in the official Fedora repositories yet.
I took a little peek and want to add the following comments: - The `rustup` binary can generate shell completions [1], would be cool if you can generate them after the binary is built and add them to the package - The binary name seems to be `rustup-init`, can this be renamed to `rustup`? - Tracing support has been patched out, I guess packaging `rs_tracing` brings in another batch of deps? - In `www/fonts/` there is a "SIL OPEN FONT" license, however I am unsure if the fonts are used for the doc generation or if this is just for the official rustup page. [1] https://rust-lang.github.io/rustup/installation/index.html#enable-tab-completion-for-bash-fish-zsh-or-powershell Here is a also copr build with a FedoraReview template: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/blinxen/fedora-review-rustup/build/6700149/
(In reply to blinxen from comment #5) > I took a little peek and want to add the following comments: > > - The `rustup` binary can generate shell completions [1], would be cool if > you can generate them after the binary is built and add them to the package I can try to do that, but see next point. > - The binary name seems to be `rustup-init`, can this be renamed to `rustup`? No, they are different things. rustup-init is the program that sets up rustup for the user, but it's not rustup itself. However, I *think* the binary is the same, and if I just make a temporary copy of rustup-init as rustup I might be able to generate the shell completions. > - Tracing support has been patched out, I guess packaging `rs_tracing` > brings in another batch of deps? It does - and if it's disabled, all the tracing support compiles down to noops. I'd rather not package a tracing stack that will end up unused. > - In `www/fonts/` there is a "SIL OPEN FONT" license, however I am unsure if > the fonts are used for the doc generation or if this is just for the > official rustup page. The "www" directory contains the sources for https://rustup.rs/ (see "index.html" file). None of those files should end up in the compiled "rustup-init" binary. > [1] > https://rust-lang.github.io/rustup/installation/index.html#enable-tab- > completion-for-bash-fish-zsh-or-powershell
> However, I *think* the binary is the same, To elaborate: As far as I can tell, the program reads argv[0] for the name of the binary that contains the program. If the file name is "rustup-init", it runs the installer, and if it's "rustup", it runs rustup.
I am taking this review over since the original reviewer asked me to on matrix. > To elaborate: As far as I can tell, the program reads argv[0] for the name of the binary that contains the program. > If the file name is "rustup-init", it runs the installer, and if it's "rustup", it runs rustup. Yeah, according to this comment [1] it does seem that way. Very Funny :D. > However, I *think* the binary is the same, and if I just make a temporary copy of rustup-init as rustup I might be able to generate the shell completions. This should work, I just tested it locally. I did `mv rustup-init rustup && rustup completions bash` and it generated bash completions. However generating shell completions would be good but is not mandatory. As far as I can see, the package complies with the Fedora packaging guidelines. APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 108035 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rustup-1.26.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rustup-debuginfo-1.26.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rustup-debugsource-1.26.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rustup-1.26.0-1.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/tmp_46y46wy')] checks: 31, packages: 4 rustup.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rustup-init rustup.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/rustup-init SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rustup-debuginfo-1.26.0-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmpse9sziao')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rustup-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rustup-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rustup". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/archive/1.26.0/rustup-1.26.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6f20ff98f2f1dbde6886f8d133fe0d7aed24bc76c670ea1fca18eb33baadd808 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f20ff98f2f1dbde6886f8d133fe0d7aed24bc76c670ea1fca18eb33baadd808 Requires -------- rustup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(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) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rustup-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rustup-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rustup: rustup rustup(x86-64) rustup-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rustup-debuginfo rustup-debuginfo(x86-64) rustup-debugsource: rustup-debugsource rustup-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rustup --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, PHP, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/blob/master/src/bin/rustup-init.rs#L3
Great, thank you for the review! I'll try to enable the shell completions before I do the import and build.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rustup
Imported and built (including shell completions): https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-89900a52a3 I also verified that running "rustup-init" actually works. It results in a working installation of "rustup", and prints a log message that rustup itself will be updated via package manager.