Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-sealed_test/rust-sealed_test.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-sealed_test/rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: A procmacro attribute to run your test in an isolated environment. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
$ cat rust2rpm.toml [scripts] check.pre = [ "git config --global user.name fedora", "git config --global user.email fedora", ] [requires] test = ["git-core"]
Note: this is a non-binding review. Summary ====== License check is being a bit noisy, complaining about missing licenses in the sources. The top level inclusion appears to be fine. For completeness, a short license string in the source files themselves. Note, the boxes marked [?] were not evaluated! There are also a few very minor linter errors thrown up by rpm lint Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/sealed_test-1.0.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/adam/fedora/reviews/2283588-rust-sealed_test/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [-]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: 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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- sealed_test-devel , rust-sealed_test+default-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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-sealed_test-devel-1.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-sealed_test+default-devel-1.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpkx9xz1yr')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-sealed_test+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Procmacro', 'Summary(en_US) Procmacro -> Macrocosm') rust-sealed_test+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('procmacro', '%description -l en_US procmacro -> macrocosm') rust-sealed_test.src: E: spelling-error ('Procmacro', 'Summary(en_US) Procmacro -> Macrocosm') rust-sealed_test.src: E: spelling-error ('procmacro', '%description -l en_US procmacro -> macrocosm') rust-sealed_test-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Procmacro', 'Summary(en_US) Procmacro -> Macrocosm') rust-sealed_test-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('procmacro', '%description -l en_US procmacro -> macrocosm') rust-sealed_test+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 rust-sealed_test+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Procmacro', 'Summary(en_US) Procmacro -> Macrocosm') rust-sealed_test+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('procmacro', '%description -l en_US procmacro -> macrocosm') rust-sealed_test-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Procmacro', 'Summary(en_US) Procmacro -> Macrocosm') rust-sealed_test-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('procmacro', '%description -l en_US procmacro -> macrocosm') rust-sealed_test+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/sealed_test/1.0.0/download#/sealed_test-1.0.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a608d94641cc17fe203b102db2ae86d47a236630192f0244ddbbbb0044c0272 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a608d94641cc17fe203b102db2ae86d47a236630192f0244ddbbbb0044c0272 Requires -------- rust-sealed_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(fs_extra/default) >= 1.2.0 with crate(fs_extra/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rusty-forkfork/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(rusty-forkfork/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(sealed_test_derive/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(sealed_test_derive/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(tempfile/default) >= 3.0.0 with crate(tempfile/default) < 4.0.0~) cargo rust-sealed_test+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(sealed_test) Provides -------- rust-sealed_test-devel: crate(sealed_test) rust-sealed_test-devel rust-sealed_test+default-devel: crate(sealed_test/default) rust-sealed_test+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2283588 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, PHP, R, Haskell, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Package looks good to me. Side note: The way packages for cargo features are set up ensures that license files are always installed for all subpackages, because all feature subpackages depend on the "main" -devel package that contains the license files. === Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. ✅ package contains only permissible content ✅ 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. === 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)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sealed_test
FEDORA-2024-e916115020 (rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e916115020
FEDORA-2024-00e0d7572c (rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-00e0d7572c
FEDORA-2024-399dc9ce0f (rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-399dc9ce0f
FEDORA-2024-e916115020 (rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-399dc9ce0f 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-2024-399dc9ce0f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-399dc9ce0f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-00e0d7572c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-00e0d7572c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-00e0d7572c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-399dc9ce0f (rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-00e0d7572c (rust-sealed_test-1.0.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.