Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc39/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Rust bindings for GNOME libpanel Fedora Account System Username:
Fixed any source issues. I now build the srpms in an isolated _sourcedir. Sigh. Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc39/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
I'll review it
* [Not a blocker] The file with licensing terms need some love. I don't think that "Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>" is a valid licensing term. However I see this as upstream issue not ours. In the mean time ask upstream to fill placeholders with a real values. * The more worrying issue is that the resulting RPM package couldn't be installed properly in chroot (while running fedora-review) on my machine. Maybe there is something wrong with my system or the package intended for fedora-41? Could you please investigate it? * Looks like you accidentally packaged two copies of licensing. Since the package heavily uses macros maybe adding it manually isn't necessary anymore. Take a look at this one. The same story with README.md. * Version 0.5.0 is out. Does anything stop you from packaging it? Apart from that I cannot see anything else so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not install properly. See my comments above. - Package contains duplicates in %files. See my comments above. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/libpanel-0.4.0/COPYING ===== 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 (MIT or Apache-2.0). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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 368 bytes in 1 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. [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. See my note above. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Upstream doe not publish GPG signatures. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check section is passing but upstream does not have any tests. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.6 starting (python version = 3.12.4, NVR = mock-5.6-1.fc40), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results install /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/rust-libpanel-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/rust-libpanel-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/libpanel-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/rust-libpanel+default-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2297995-rust-libpanel/results/rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.6 INFO: Mock Version: 5.6 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/rust-libpanel-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/libpanel-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+default-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 60e7538c8cdd41d8a23eb01272fc24e0 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.uo3catlv:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 install /builddir/rust-libpanel-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/libpanel-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+default-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm rust-libpanel-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-libpanel+default-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel-0.4.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-libpanel-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.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/tmp7rma9tg1')] checks: 32, packages: 8 libpanel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary main rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libpanel+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation libpanel.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary libpanel ===================================================================================================== 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 34 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 s ===================================================================================================== Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/libpanel/0.4.0/download#/libpanel-0.4.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ecbed4faf2b31e3cb2238a45bcec502bb98d4095c5bd17d539055090a90856bc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ecbed4faf2b31e3cb2238a45bcec502bb98d4095c5bd17d539055090a90856bc Requires -------- libpanel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libpanel-1.so.1()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-libpanel-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(futures-core) >= 0.3.0 with crate(futures-core) < 0.4.0~) (crate(gdk4/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(gdk4/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(gio/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(gio/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(glib/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(glib/default) < 0.20.0~) (crate(gtk4/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(gtk4/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(libadwaita/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(libadwaita/default) < 0.7.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.140 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(libpanel-sys/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(libpanel-sys/default) < 0.5.0~) cargo rust rust-libpanel+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(libpanel) rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(libadwaita/v1_2) >= 0.6.0 with crate(libadwaita/v1_2) < 0.7.0~) cargo crate(libpanel) rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(libpanel-sys/v1_2) >= 0.4.0 with crate(libpanel-sys/v1_2) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(libpanel) rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(libpanel-sys/v1_4) >= 0.4.0 with crate(libpanel-sys/v1_4) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(libpanel) crate(libpanel/v1_2) rust-libpanel-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libpanel: libpanel libpanel(x86-64) rust-libpanel-devel: crate(libpanel) rust-libpanel-devel rust-libpanel+default-devel: crate(libpanel/default) rust-libpanel+default-devel rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel: crate(libpanel/adw_v1_2) rust-libpanel+adw_v1_2-devel rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel: crate(libpanel/v1_2) rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel: crate(libpanel/v1_4) rust-libpanel+v1_4-devel rust-libpanel-debugsource: rust-libpanel-debugsource rust-libpanel-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297995 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * [Not a blocker] The file with licensing terms need some love. I don't > think that "Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>" is a valid licensing > term. However I see this as upstream issue not ours. In the mean time ask > upstream to fill placeholders with a real values. https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/libpanel-rs/-/issues/7 for getting upstream to fixup the license. > * The more worrying issue is that the resulting RPM package couldn't be > installed properly in chroot (while running fedora-review) on my machine. > Maybe there is something wrong with my system or the package intended for > fedora-41? Could you please investigate it? Confirmed that something is going on. I'll get it fixed. > * Looks like you accidentally packaged two copies of licensing. Since the > package heavily uses macros maybe adding it manually isn't necessary > anymore. Take a look at this one. The same story with README.md. This is common and known for the rust2rpm generated packages. I've not had to do anything about it for the other packages. > * Version 0.5.0 is out. Does anything stop you from packaging it? The latest version requires the entire gtk stack to be upgraded. This will be done in Rawhide at a later time. I think we want to try to sort out GIR syncing stuff before the upgrade of all of the packages. This will be handled at the Rust SIG level so I'm focused on packaging the compatible versions.
(In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #4) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * [Not a blocker] The file with licensing terms need some love. I don't > > think that "Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>" is a valid licensing > > term. However I see this as upstream issue not ours. In the mean time ask > > upstream to fill placeholders with a real values. > > https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/libpanel-rs/-/issues/7 for getting > upstream to fixup the license. > > > * The more worrying issue is that the resulting RPM package couldn't be > > installed properly in chroot (while running fedora-review) on my machine. > > Maybe there is something wrong with my system or the package intended for > > fedora-41? Could you please investigate it? > > Confirmed that something is going on. I'll get it fixed. > > > * Looks like you accidentally packaged two copies of licensing. Since the > > package heavily uses macros maybe adding it manually isn't necessary > > anymore. Take a look at this one. The same story with README.md. > > This is common and known for the rust2rpm generated packages. I've not had > to do anything about it for the other packages. > > > * Version 0.5.0 is out. Does anything stop you from packaging it? > > The latest version requires the entire gtk stack to be upgraded. This will > be done in Rawhide at a later time. I think we want to try to sort out GIR > syncing stuff before the upgrade of all of the packages. This will be > handled at the Rust SIG level so I'm focused on packaging the compatible > versions. Ok, got it. I don't have anything else to discuss so this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
Are you sure that this package does what you want? The built "libpanel" subpackage will clash with the actual "libpanel", and it only contains an executable called "main". I appreciate that the license stuff is almost handled correctly (the license tag of the subpackage is incomplete), but did you stop to think whether this subpackage / executable should be included at all? It looks like the "main" binary is just an example application: ``` [[bin]] name = "main" path = "./examples/basic/main.rs" ``` This is unusual, examples are supposed to be [[example]] targets, not [[bin]] targets. It's why this is picked up as an installable executable when it probably shouldn't be. As-is, this is not acceptable due to the clash on package name with the actual "libpanel", and due to the incomplete license tag. I would strongly suggest to use ``` [package] cargo-install-bin = false ``` in a rust2rpm.toml config file to prevent installation of this example application and possibly report to upstream that example code is supposed to be an "example" and not an installable "bin".
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc39/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Ah, I did miss the second License. However, with cargo-install-bin = false all of that has gone away and we're simplified back to just MIT. https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/libpanel-rs/-/issues/8 filed for the change to us the `[[example]]` target instead of `[[main]]`. I've removed the examples from the package. The examples show up as GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 or later, but are not shipped in the resulting package. I'm not sure if I need to add that license detail somewhere in the spec. The errors with installing seem to be a fedora-review bug: <mock-chroot> sh-5.2# dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 repoquery -q -C --requires --resolve rust-libpanel-devel --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Unknown argument "--resolve" for command "repoquery". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments. ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 2156a52d797b4f308853e17b5a77d806 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.c_dhk71o:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 repoquery -q -C --requires --resolve rust-libpanel-devel --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M db0ac8e8529840ca918289df968cd8bd -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.0aumwthf:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 repoquery -q -C --requires --resolve rust-libpanel-devel --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 69a25c97e9fe4b469fc41290e069011d -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.243t242t:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 repoquery -q -C --requires --resolve rust-libpanel-devel --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M ebaf3fc51c3e4d9d84dd2738a1b08e4c -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.5ex42261:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 repoquery -q -C --requires --resolve rust-libpanel+v1_2-devel rust-libpanel-devel --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Okay, we should be back in business to finish this review. Apply https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-297ab4c63e for the needed fixes for fedora-review. I think I've addressed all of the other feedback.
Looks like it needs more work. I'll do an update soon.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc39/rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Okay, this is ready for re-review. The only outstanding question is: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later ----------------------------------------------- rust-libpanel-0.4.0-build/libpanel-0.4.0/examples/basic/main.rs rust-libpanel-0.4.0-build/libpanel-0.4.0/examples/basic/page.rs rust-libpanel-0.4.0-build/libpanel-0.4.0/examples/basic/window.rs GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 -------------------------------------------- rust-libpanel-0.4.0-build/libpanel-0.4.0/examples/basic/COPYING I'm removing these as they need to be changed to examples (https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/Rust/libpanel-rs/-/issues/8) so I have not included this in the License tag.
Peter, Are there any other changes needed for this to be re-reviewed and approved?
Stripping the examples should be fine, FWIW. Would be nice to get relm4 in soon, I plan to use it in a personal project.
(In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #11) > Peter, > > Are there any other changes needed for this to be re-reviewed and approved? I don't think so. That bin-example issue was the main stopper IMHO.
Let me re-review it.
Ok, I don't see any other issues (the one spotted by @michel is addressed) som this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-libpanel
FEDORA-2024-1b83074ebe (rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1b83074ebe
FEDORA-2024-1b83074ebe (rust-libpanel-0.4.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.