Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/rust-add-determinism.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/rust-add-determinism-0.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: RPM buildroot helper to strip nondeterministic bits in files Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek
This just includes the helper for now, without the rpm macros to hook it into the build process.
The effective license for the binary package needs to be updated according to the macro: # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # GPL-3.0-or-later # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT
Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/rust-add-determinism.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/rust-add-determinism-0.1.0-2.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7208170 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271204-rust-add-determinism/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07208170-rust-add-determinism/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package has .a files: rust-add-determinism-devel. Does not provide -static: rust-add-determinism-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Created attachment 2023359 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7208170 to 7208174
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7208174 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2271204-rust-add-determinism/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07208174-rust-add-determinism/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package has .a files: rust-add-determinism-devel. Does not provide -static: rust-add-determinism-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. - package builds and installs without errors on rawhide - test suite is run and all unit tests pass - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-add-determinism
Just FYI, the snapshot packaging you're doing on import (*after* the correct thing was reviewed here) is very much in conflict with at least one MUST NOT guidelines: Since this package provides Rust -devel and +default-devel packages (i.e. provides "crate(add-determinism)"), sources MUST be from crates.io. If I had known you wanted to do weird things with this package, I would have recommended to make it a binary-only package and name it "add-determinism" instead.
I read that part of the guidelines when I was figuring out what the name of the package should be. The guideline text is: > Rust crates that are published on crates.io MUST be packaged with rust-$crate as the name of the source package (where $crate is the name of the project on crates.io). > [...] > On the other hand, projects from other sources MUST NOT use the rust- prefix for source package names So this *is* a project from crates.io. The name is registered on crates.io and you can download a version of this project from there, even if it not exactly the version which is present in the package. In fact, I pushed version 0.1.0 to crates.io specifically to satisfy the guidelines and make rust2rpm generate the binary package as expected. There is a certain ambiguity here. You said that "sources MUST be from crates.io", but this is NOT in the the text of the guidelines. I always understood the PG rule for naming with rust-* as intended to prevent confusion and or/conflict if a different package with a given name was later uploaded to crates.io. Once the code stabilizes, I expect normal releases to be made and uploaded to crates.io. I didn't do this here, because it seemed silly to tag new versions when the package is under development and I'll want to build a new version in rawhide possibly every few days and there are no other uses of the crate. That said, I would be fine with renaming the package to 'add-determinism' if there's a strong reason to do that.
You are right, the language around what source package name to use is not clear here. I'll think about how to improve this. But I was referring to this from the Guidelines: > Projects from crates.io MUST be packaged from the sources that are published there (i.e. by using the %{crates_source} macro). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_package_sources