Bug 2262011 - Review Request: rust-stability - Rust API stability attributes for the rest of us
Summary: Review Request: rust-stability - Rust API stability attributes for the rest o...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/stability
Depends On:
Blocks: 2223321
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2024-01-30 22:16 UTC by Fabio Valentini
Modified: 2024-02-19 16:14 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2024-02-19 16:14:59 UTC
Type: ---
code: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabio Valentini 2024-01-30 22:16:32 UTC
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-stability.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-stability-0.1.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Rust API stability attributes for the rest of us.

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2024-01-30 22:16:35 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112629073

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-30 22:23:09 UTC
Copr build:

Review template:

Please take a look if any issues were found.

This comment was created by the 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.

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2024-02-19 01:02:12 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

The spec is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-

  This is not a serious problem, and should be fixed in rust2rpm if it is a
  problem at all.

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2262011-rust-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo

     Spurious diagnostic (fedora-review bug)

[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
[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]: 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 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
[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
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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 rust-
     stability-devel , rust-stability+default-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (tests pass)

[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported


[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: rust-stability-devel-0.1.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
=========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==========================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpiysnicmt')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-stability+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
===================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =====================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
checks: 32, packages: 2

rust-stability+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Source checksums
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/stability/0.1.1/download#/stability-0.1.1.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ebd1b177894da2a2d9120208c3386066af06a488255caabc5de8ddca22dbc3ce
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebd1b177894da2a2d9120208c3386066af06a488255caabc5de8ddca22dbc3ce

rust-stability-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(quote/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(quote/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/derive) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(syn/full) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/full) < 2.0.0~)

rust-stability+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2262011 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, C/C++, Java, Haskell, fonts, R, PHP, Ocaml, Perl

Comment 4 Fabio Valentini 2024-02-19 12:44:54 UTC
Thank you for the review!

Comment 5 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-02-19 12:45:25 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-stability

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2024-02-19 16:01:37 UTC
FEDORA-2024-9be318df12 (rust-crosstermion-0.13.0-1.fc41, rust-dua-cli-2.28.0-1.fc41, and 8 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2024-02-19 16:14:59 UTC
FEDORA-2024-9be318df12 (rust-crosstermion-0.13.0-1.fc41, rust-dua-cli-2.28.0-1.fc41, and 8 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.