Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-ravif.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-ravif-0.11.5-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Rav1e-based pure Rust library for encoding images in AVIF format (powers the `cavif` tool). Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7528864 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290393-rust-ravif/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07528864-rust-ravif/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
A newer release, 0.11.8, is available. It updates some dependency version bounds (but since rust-rgb was just updated, all are available in Rawhide and at least in testing for stable releases), and there are some minor code changes. None of this should affect the review findings, so I will review this as-is, and suggest updating promptly when the package is imported. The only caveat is that https://github.com/kornelski/cavif-rs/commit/d7e5c2afa9802d666dfc463e954135b86e2c3b51 added rust-version = "1.79" # bitstream-io breaks it and you will have to patch this out, or at least loosen it to 1.75, in order to build an updated version of this package on EPEL9.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm with no configuration file, greatly simplifying the review. A newer version is available; notes on that are in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290393#c2. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/ravif-0.11.5/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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2290393-rust-ravif/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. $ rpm -qL -p results/rust-ravif-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/share/cargo/registry/ravif-0.11.5/LICENSE [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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. [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- ravif-devel , rust-ravif+default-devel , rust-ravif+asm-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass – although there is only one enabled test shipped in the crate!) [!]: Latest version is packaged. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290393#c2 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I started a build in COPR to check this, but I got tired of waiting for COPR builders after about 20 minutes and gave up. I’ll follow up here if the build ends up failing. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/ravif/builds/ [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-ravif-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-ravif+default-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-ravif+asm-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-ravif-0.11.5-1.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/tmpkn9zyf4o')] checks: 32, packages: 4 rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif.src: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ====================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 3 rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/ravif/0.11.5/download#/ravif-0.11.5.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bc13288f5ab39e6d7c9d501759712e6969fcc9734220846fc9ed26cae2cc4234 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bc13288f5ab39e6d7c9d501759712e6969fcc9734220846fc9ed26cae2cc4234 Requires -------- rust-ravif-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(avif-serialize/default) >= 0.8.1 with crate(avif-serialize/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(imgref/default) >= 1.9.4 with crate(imgref/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(loop9/default) >= 0.1.3 with crate(loop9/default) < 0.2.0~) (crate(quick-error/default) >= 2.0.1 with crate(quick-error/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(rav1e) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rav1e) < 0.8.0~) (crate(rav1e/threading) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rav1e/threading) < 0.8.0~) (crate(rayon/default) >= 1.7.0 with crate(rayon/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rgb/default) >= 0.8.36 with crate(rgb/default) < 0.9.0~) cargo rust-ravif+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ravif) crate(ravif/asm) rust-ravif+asm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rav1e/asm) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rav1e/asm) < 0.8.0~) cargo crate(ravif) Provides -------- rust-ravif-devel: crate(ravif) rust-ravif-devel rust-ravif+default-devel: crate(ravif/default) rust-ravif+default-devel rust-ravif+asm-devel: crate(ravif/asm) rust-ravif+asm-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2290393 -L ravif-deps/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/ravif-deps/rust-loop9+default-devel-0.1.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/ravif-deps/rust-loop9-devel-0.1.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
Thank you for the review! I'll stay with the current version then if the newer one currently can't be packaged for EPEL 9.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ravif
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cd6c8e0fc3 Will update to the latest version as soon as possible.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4) > Thank you for the review! > > I'll stay with the current version then if the newer one currently can't be > packaged for EPEL 9. I think it might be OK with a patch to remove the MSRV, as the MSRV appears to be just a reaction to something about bitstream-io rather than anything that changed within this crate, and I do note that the package for rust-bitstream-io is kept at an older version in EPEL9 than in Fedora. However, I don’t completely understand what happened with bitstream-io to prompt all this.
IIRC it was because bitstream-io started using a new feature of Rust 1.79: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/06/13/Rust-1.79.0.html#inline-const-expressions
Ah, then it should be OK to patch the MSRV for this for EPEL9 given that rust-bitstream-io won’t be updated in EPEL9 to a version that the system rust can’t compile.