Bug 2282282 - Review Request: rust-tui-input - TUI input library supporting multiple backends
Summary: Review Request: rust-tui-input - TUI input library supporting multiple backends
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/tui-input
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-05-22 03:55 UTC by Jose Fernandez
Modified: 2024-05-26 03:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-05-26 03:35:20 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-05-22 03:55:41 UTC
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-05-22 04:06:02 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7475048
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2282282-rust-tui-input/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07475048-rust-tui-input/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.

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2024-05-22 11:04:56 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, which greatly simplifies the
review.

Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/tui-
  input-0.8.0/LICENSE
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  This is not a serious problem; if it should be fixed, then it should be fixed
  in rust2rpm.


===== 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". 15 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/Downloads/review/2282282-rust-tui-input/licensecheck.txt
[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, /usr/share, /usr,
     /usr/share/cargo/registry

     This diagnostic is a fedora-review bug.

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share,
     /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr

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

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

Generic:
[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).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     tui-input-devel , rust-tui-input+default-devel , rust-tui-
     input+crossterm-devel , rust-tui-input+serde-devel , rust-tui-
     input+termion-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (test 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
     architectures.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118014842

[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-tui-input-devel-0.8.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-tui-input+default-devel-0.8.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-tui-input+crossterm-devel-0.8.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-tui-input+serde-devel-0.8.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-tui-input+termion-devel-0.8.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-tui-input-0.8.0-1.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/tmpwh9npa37')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

rust-tui-input+crossterm-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-tui-input+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-tui-input+serde-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-tui-input+termion-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 39 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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: 5

rust-tui-input+serde-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-tui-input+crossterm-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-tui-input+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-tui-input+termion-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 33 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/tui-input/0.8.0/download#/tui-input-0.8.0.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b3e785f863a3af4c800a2a669d0b64c879b538738e352607e2624d03f868dc01
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b3e785f863a3af4c800a2a669d0b64c879b538738e352607e2624d03f868dc01


Requires
--------
rust-tui-input-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(unicode-width/default) >= 0.1.10 with crate(unicode-width/default) < 0.2.0~)
    cargo

rust-tui-input+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(tui-input)
    crate(tui-input/crossterm)

rust-tui-input+crossterm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(crossterm/default) >= 0.27.0 with crate(crossterm/default) < 0.28.0~)
    cargo
    crate(tui-input)

rust-tui-input+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.183 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.183 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~)
    cargo
    crate(tui-input)

rust-tui-input+termion-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(termion/default) >= 2.0.1 with crate(termion/default) < 3.0.0~)
    cargo
    crate(tui-input)



Provides
--------
rust-tui-input-devel:
    crate(tui-input)
    rust-tui-input-devel

rust-tui-input+default-devel:
    crate(tui-input/default)
    rust-tui-input+default-devel

rust-tui-input+crossterm-devel:
    crate(tui-input/crossterm)
    rust-tui-input+crossterm-devel

rust-tui-input+serde-devel:
    crate(tui-input/serde)
    rust-tui-input+serde-devel

rust-tui-input+termion-devel:
    crate(tui-input/termion)
    rust-tui-input+termion-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2282282 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 5 Ben Beasley 2024-05-22 11:05:29 UTC
Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
  (should happen automatically)

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- track package in koschei for all built branches
  (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)

Comment 6 Jose Fernandez 2024-05-23 12:17:28 UTC
Thanks, Ben. I'm looking for a sponsor.

Comment 7 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-05-26 03:10:49 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tui-input

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2024-05-26 03:31:26 UTC
FEDORA-2024-e94f13c231 (rust-tui-input-0.8.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e94f13c231

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2024-05-26 03:35:20 UTC
FEDORA-2024-e94f13c231 (rust-tui-input-0.8.0-1.fc41) 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.