Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: FFI bindings to vte-2.91-gtk4 Fedora Account System Username: jsteffan
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7617825 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292554-rust-vte4-sys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07617825-rust-vte4-sys/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++/ 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.
> # FIXME: no license files detected License files are present in upstream, please temporarily include them manually.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Staying with 0.7 series as the 0.8 upgrade requires a bunch of updates to existing package. That can be done in rawhide after getting these batch through.
As a note to self, I need to add a rust2rpm.toml with the following content: [requires] build = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk40)"] lib = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"]
[requires] build = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"] lib = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"]
Looks like the license file you added doesn't match the one behind the download URL you provided: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/raw/main/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 39fa265207450e77c62e90c5594a06c085b655d8374c7ced4bf7894b6bd95dd2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9c4c77baa3828004ee54b8a4f2db2e88ed44a6237a493965bf551fac0fcb62d https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/vte4-sys/0.7.0/download#/vte4-sys-0.7.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d893a06a0907d5b843f34400ff0a7990332011e53faa7435635f0b12aacc3f88 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d893a06a0907d5b843f34400ff0a7990332011e53faa7435635f0b12aacc3f88 diff -r also reports differences
Fun. This is caused by multiple sources with the same filename and using spectool -g. Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2039748 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7617825 to 7738878
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7738878 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292554-rust-vte4-sys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07738878-rust-vte4-sys/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++/ 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.
Fixed any source issues. I now build the srpms in an isolated _sourcedir. Sigh. Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
Updated based on feedback for the LICENSE URL in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2292555 Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Is there anything else I need to do for this to be re-reviewed?
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc39/rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Updated to explicitly disable the failing tests but still run %check. [requires] build = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"] lib = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"] [tests] comments = [ "Skipped tests due to differences in GIR", ] skip-exact = true skip = [ "cross_validate_constants_with_c", "cross_validate_layout_with_c" ]
Created attachment 2040594 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7738878 to 7794721
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7794721 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292554-rust-vte4-sys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07794721-rust-vte4-sys/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++/ 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 2043225 [details] fedora-review log FTBFS with fedora-review.
That is actually a bug in fedora-review. You need to be running fedora-review-0.10.0-9 or later that has patches for that issue.
(In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #17) > That is actually a bug in fedora-review. You need to be running > fedora-review-0.10.0-9 or later that has patches for that issue. Thank, it does works now.
I am going to review it.
The only thing I see is that you packaged not the last version. I guess it's the same story as with other GNOME-related Rust-bindings. Here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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 (MIT). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format (%autochangelog). [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: [-]: 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- vte4-sys-devel , rust-vte4-sys+default-devel , rust- vte4-sys+v0_66-devel , rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel , rust- vte4-sys+v0_72-devel , rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel [?]: i did not test if the package functions as described. [!]: Not the latest version is packaged. See my comment above. I do not consider it as a blocker. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify since upstream doesn't provide GPG signatures. [?]: I did not test if the package could be compiled 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]: 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-vte4-sys-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-sys+default-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel-0.7.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.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/tmp2e8fved0')] checks: 32, packages: 7 rust-vte4-sys+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ===================================================================================================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 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: 6 rust-vte4-sys-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-vte4-sys+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/raw/f7202463afeea70b6005abc5511be5f778c1bca6/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9c4c77baa3828004ee54b8a4f2db2e88ed44a6237a493965bf551fac0fcb62d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9c4c77baa3828004ee54b8a4f2db2e88ed44a6237a493965bf551fac0fcb62d https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/vte4-sys/0.7.0/download#/vte4-sys-0.7.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d893a06a0907d5b843f34400ff0a7990332011e53faa7435635f0b12aacc3f88 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d893a06a0907d5b843f34400ff0a7990332011e53faa7435635f0b12aacc3f88 Requires -------- rust-vte4-sys-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(cairo-sys-rs/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(cairo-sys-rs/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(gdk4-sys/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(gdk4-sys/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(gio-sys/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(gio-sys/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(glib-sys/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(glib-sys/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(gtk4-sys/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(gtk4-sys/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(pango-sys/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(pango-sys/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(system-deps/default) >= 6.0.0 with crate(system-deps/default) < 7.0.0~) cargo pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4) rust-vte4-sys+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vte4-sys) rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vte4-sys) rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vte4-sys) rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vte4-sys) crate(vte4-sys/v0_70) rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vte4-sys) crate(vte4-sys/v0_72) Provides -------- rust-vte4-sys-devel: crate(vte4-sys) rust-vte4-sys-devel rust-vte4-sys+default-devel: crate(vte4-sys/default) rust-vte4-sys+default-devel rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel: crate(vte4-sys/v0_66) rust-vte4-sys+v0_66-devel rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel: crate(vte4-sys/v0_70) rust-vte4-sys+v0_70-devel rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel: crate(vte4-sys/v0_72) rust-vte4-sys+v0_72-devel rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel: crate(vte4-sys/v0_74) rust-vte4-sys+v0_74-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2292554 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH I don't se any issues so this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
Looks good to me too, just a suggestion for better metadata / integration with RPM dependencies: You might want to add Requires for the specific vte library versions for the features that depend on them. Something like this in rust2rpm.toml should work: ``` [requires] build = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"] lib = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4)"] features.v0_66 = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4) >= 0.66"] features.v0_70 = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4) >= 0.70"] features.v0_72 = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4) >= 0.72"] features.v0_74 = ["pkgconfig(vte-2.91-gtk4) >= 0.74"] ``` This happens often for GNOME-related library bindings. You can take a look at gtk4-sys for an example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-gtk4-sys/blob/rawhide/f/rust2rpm.toml Adding these Requires explicitly should prevent some weird and / or hard to diagnose compiler failures when the vte library on the host is older than the one expected by the feature flags passed to the crate.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-vte4-sys
Thanks. Good to know about what to do for the optional features.
FEDORA-2024-6cd58d3ed7 (rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6cd58d3ed7
FEDORA-2024-6cd58d3ed7 (rust-vte4-sys-0.7.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #21) > Adding these Requires explicitly should prevent some weird and / or hard to > diagnose compiler failures when the vte library on the host is older than > the one expected by the feature flags passed to the crate. To generate this list I would just look at https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/vte4-rs/-/blob/main/vte4/Cargo.toml?ref_type=heads#L54-61 and do the mapping by hand? On update, adding the new minimums? Thanks for all of the guidance.
Yes, exactly. This is how it's handled for most other Rust bindings for C libraries - i.e. provide features that "unlock" APIs that are only added in newer versions of the C library than the "base" version that's supported. Mapping this to RPM metadata avoids very weird build issues when the version "expected" by the bindings is newer than the version of the library in the build environment.