Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust-uu_yes.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust-uu_yes-0.0.23-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y'). Fedora Account System Username: salimma
No issues found; the package is: $ uu_yes APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED […] Please do see the question about man pages, though. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is based on the output of rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The following changes are noted: - The first letter of the Summary and description text is lower-cased. This is a reasonable change to do downstream if you believe the name of the command should always have the same case as the executable. - The actual license text and license breakdown are correctly filled in. - The binary is renamed from yes to uu_yes; this is an appopriate downstream-ony change to avoid conflicts with yes from GNU coreutils. - The patch uu_yes-fix-metadata-auto.diff removes the section [target."cfg(not(unix))".dependencies.uucore] from Cargo.toml since it doesn’t apply to Fedora; this is also a reasonable downstream-only patch. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/uu_yes-0.0.23/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is due to rust2rpm listing the entire %{crate_instdir}/ and then separately listing some of its contents as %doc/%license. The duplication appears to be harmless; if it is a problem, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm. - The content of https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/pull/4459 shows how to generate man pages for uutils coreutils when building a monolithic busybox-style binary. It looks like you’re building each command as a separate executable from the corresponding crate instead. Do you have a plan for supplying man pages? It’s not mandatory, but it sure would be nice. ===== 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", "MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258213-rust-uu_yes/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: 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 79 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in uu_yes , rust-uu_yes-devel , rust-uu_yes+default-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. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111846471 [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: uu_yes-0.0.23-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-uu_yes-devel-0.0.23-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-uu_yes+default-devel-0.0.23-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-uu_yes-debugsource-0.0.23-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-uu_yes-0.0.23-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdcmo5p6p')] checks: 31, packages: 5 rust-uu_yes+default-devel.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') rust-uu_yes.src: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') rust-uu_yes-devel.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') uu_yes.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') uu_yes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uu_yes rust-uu_yes+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 4 uu_yes.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/uu_yes /lib64/libm.so.6 rust-uu_yes-devel.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') uu_yes.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') rust-uu_yes+default-devel.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized yes ~ (uutils) repeatedly display a line with STRING (or 'y') rust-uu_yes-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uutils', 'Summary(en_US) uutils -> utilizes') rust-uu_yes-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uutils', '%description -l en_US uutils -> utilizes') uu_yes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uutils', 'Summary(en_US) uutils -> utilizes') uu_yes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uutils', '%description -l en_US uutils -> utilizes') rust-uu_yes+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uutils', 'Summary(en_US) uutils -> utilizes') rust-uu_yes+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uutils', '%description -l en_US uutils -> utilizes') uu_yes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uu_yes rust-uu_yes+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings, 15 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/uu_yes/0.0.23/download#/uu_yes-0.0.23.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9bf12a9080f8e190c0eb813b25135d047e9db1cac12202eeaacfd04eaaf19cdf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9bf12a9080f8e190c0eb813b25135d047e9db1cac12202eeaacfd04eaaf19cdf Requires -------- uu_yes (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) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-uu_yes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(clap/cargo) >= 4.4.0 with crate(clap/cargo) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/default) >= 4.4.0 with crate(clap/default) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/wrap_help) >= 4.4.0 with crate(clap/wrap_help) < 5.0.0~) (crate(itertools/default) >= 0.11.0 with crate(itertools/default) < 0.12.0~) (crate(nix) >= 0.27.0 with crate(nix) < 0.28.0~) cargo crate(uucore/default) crate(uucore/pipes) crate(uucore/signals) rust-uu_yes+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(uu_yes) rust-uu_yes-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- uu_yes: uu_yes uu_yes(x86-64) rust-uu_yes-devel: crate(uu_yes) rust-uu_yes-devel rust-uu_yes+default-devel: crate(uu_yes/default) rust-uu_yes+default-devel rust-uu_yes-debugsource: rust-uu_yes-debugsource rust-uu_yes-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258213 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, R, Perl, Python, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> > - The content of https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/pull/4459 shows how to > generate man pages for uutils coreutils when building a monolithic > busybox-style binary. It looks like you’re building each command as a > separate executable from the corresponding crate instead. Do you have a > plan for supplying man pages? It’s not mandatory, but it sure would be > nice. > The eventual goal is to package uutils-coreutils as well - I plan to put up a COPR for it now that it is already building locally (the tool to generate manpages, uudoc, is shipped in the coreutils crate). I could opt to disable building standalone commands for each dependent crates, but this way if you just want one command you can install the standalone package as well without getting the whole coreutils. It does make it harder to provide the manpage though, but since they are supposed to be drop-in replacement (mostly), it's probably fine. Definitely will generate the manpages when we get to coreutils though. My current WIP spec does not have it yet, but I'll get that in before putting it up for review. Thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-uu_yes
FEDORA-2024-33a3f4e11b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-33a3f4e11b
FEDORA-2024-33a3f4e11b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-2ff601a0db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2ff601a0db
FEDORA-2024-abaa74e470 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-2024-abaa74e470 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-abaa74e470 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-2ff601a0db has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2ff601a0db \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2ff601a0db See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-abaa74e470 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-2ff601a0db has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.