Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-histo.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-histo-1.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Simple histograms with configurable buckets. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115167626
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7183051 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2270304-rust-histo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07183051-rust-histo/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.
Taking this review General comments: - Spec file was generated with rust2rpm and minimal changes were made - rpmlint show the following warning "rust-histo-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/histo-1.0.0/ci/script.sh 644 /usr/bin/env bash" maybe just prevent the "ci/" directory from being included. However this does not prevent this package from being approved - The package review says something about directories without known ownerships, however I think this is a false positive. APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [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. [-]: 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 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 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]: 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 ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- histo-devel , rust-histo+default-devel [?]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-histo-devel-1.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-histo+default-devel-1.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-histo-1.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdyvmr054')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-histo-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/histo-1.0.0/ci/script.sh 644 /usr/bin/env bash rust-histo+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-histo+default-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-histo-devel". 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: 2 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/histo/1.0.0/download#/histo-1.0.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6a96a1c8acf372eefef3b065d800986a6d11abdc2c27cc61255513646b3df6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6a96a1c8acf372eefef3b065d800986a6d11abdc2c27cc61255513646b3df6c Requires -------- rust-histo-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(streaming-stats/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(streaming-stats/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo rust-histo+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(histo) Provides -------- rust-histo-devel: crate(histo) rust-histo-devel rust-histo+default-devel: crate(histo/default) rust-histo+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-histo --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, R, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review! > maybe just prevent the "ci/" directory from being included. I will do that, thanks for the suggestion. > The package review says something about directories without known ownerships, however I think this is a false positive. I think so: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/515
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-histo
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-04871a4a74