Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/rust-tagptr.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/rust-tagptr-0.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Strongly typed atomic and non-atomic tagged pointers. Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121449779
Is needed by rust-moka, which is needed for rust-domain in turn.
This project appears to include only the Apache-2.0 license header in LICENSE-APACHE, but not the actual license text (which is required for Apache-2.0). Please report this with upstream.
If you're still interested in this package, then please follow up here.
Yes, still want it. Filled https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/issues/2 and https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/pull/3
Oh, you're correct, sorry about that! Then the package looks good to me. === 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 files are 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 (*NOT* pre-release) 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)
Sorry, made the last changes in the wrong bug.
Could you please give me fedora-review+ again and set a need info to me?
I cannot give fedora-review+ in the current state, as outlined above. It's a hard requirement of the Apache-2.0 license for redistributed sources to contain a copy of the license text.
It looks like upstream is not reacting to your issue or pull request. Since the Apache-2.0 license has a well-known standardized license text, you can temporarily include that (either from the canonical source on the Apache website or from your PR) to unblock the package review. Though whether packaging something where the project is untouched for 4+ years and the maintainer barely active is a good idea is a question left to the reader.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #10) > Though whether packaging something where the project is untouched for 4+ > years and the maintainer barely active is a good idea is a question left to > the reader. It looks like tagptr is a hard dependency for moka, which is a hard dependency for the latest release of hickory-resolver, so it seems we will have no choice but to package this one way or the other. Petr, do you want to submit an updated package with the necessary license text patched in, or should I start a new review request and close this one? Thanks!
Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/tagptr/raw/refs/heads/fedora/rust-tagptr.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rust-tagptr-0.2.0-2.fc44.src.rpm Refreshed package with just extra sources. Just with tiny addition to rust2rpm.toml: [[package.extra-sources]] number = 2 file = "LICENSE-APACHE" comments = ["Missing license text, https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/pull/3"]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9525543 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2302630-rust-tagptr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09525543-rust-tagptr/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.
In Matrix chat, Fabio encouraged me to take over this review since he was short on time. The latest submission has the same LICENSE-APACHE as the upstream 0.2.0 crate, without the full license text. I think you wanted the contents of: https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/raw/81e5c6a5cbd86e0da1e47deb9ce134d1e5624137/LICENSE-APACHE Indeed, you could use the URL for that source, like: # * Missing license text, https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/pull/3 Source2: https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/raw/81e5c6a5cbd86e0da1e47deb9ce134d1e5624137/LICENSE-APACHE You will also need to actually copy the license file into the extracted crate, like: %prep %autosetup -n %{crate}-%{version} -p1 cp -p '%{SOURCE2}' . %cargo_prep You could do this in rust2rpm.toml with: [scripts.prep] pre = ["cp -p '%{SOURCE2}' ."] I don’t see any other obvious issues.
Petr, when you have a chance, could you please update the submission with the correct license text? The entire brotli/hickory-resolver update is ready to move forward as soon as this package and rust-moka, bug 2393703, pass review. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-brotli/pull-request/2#comment-281957 You would also be able to update rust-domain.
Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/tagptr/raw/refs/heads/fedora/rust-tagptr.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rust-tagptr-0.2.0-3.fc44.src.rpm rust2toml URL: https://github.com/pemensik/tagptr/raw/refs/heads/fedora/rust2rpm.toml Ah, yes, sorry! Failed to notice I did not refresh existing LICENSE-APACHE in my git branch. It remained the previous version after main branch were already fixed. Added explicit copy into build dir like you suggested. Have not realized the file there has to be replaced, because it existed before with insufficient content. This time I have verified correct license text is both in SRPM and main devel package. Should be ready to go, take a look at it Ben?
Created attachment 2106846 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9525543 to 9561973
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9561973 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2302630-rust-tagptr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09561973-rust-tagptr/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.
Looks good to me now – APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The previous discrepancy in the full Apache-2.0 license text is correctly resolved in coordination with upstream. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/tagptr-0.2.0/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is not a serious problem, and it is due to reasonable design decisions 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2302630-rust- tagptr/20250917/2302630-rust-tagptr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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- tagptr-devel , rust-tagptr+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. License file correction is properly coordinated with, and approved by, 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=137200226 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-tagptr-devel-0.2.0-3.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-tagptr+default-devel-0.2.0-3.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-tagptr-0.2.0-3.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpu_bhdnqt')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/oliver-giersch/tagptr/raw/81e5c6a5cbd86e0da1e47deb9ce134d1e5624137/LICENSE-APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c77e5ea989884d86808e289896ef390a650a411a04c2a8490edf4f7568b663a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c77e5ea989884d86808e289896ef390a650a411a04c2a8490edf4f7568b663a https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/tagptr/0.2.0/download#/tagptr-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b2093cf4c8eb1e67749a6762251bc9cd836b6fc171623bd0a9d324d37af2417 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b2093cf4c8eb1e67749a6762251bc9cd836b6fc171623bd0a9d324d37af2417 Requires -------- rust-tagptr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-tagptr+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(tagptr) Provides -------- rust-tagptr-devel: crate(tagptr) rust-tagptr-devel rust-tagptr+default-devel: crate(tagptr/default) rust-tagptr+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2302630-rust-tagptr/20250917/2302630-rust-tagptr/srpm/rust-tagptr.spec 2025-09-17 10:41:19.453157885 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2302630-rust-tagptr/20250917/2302630-rust-tagptr/srpm-unpacked/rust-tagptr.spec 2025-09-17 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 3; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 27 %bcond check 1 @@ -71,3 +81,15 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Sep 17 2025 Petr Menšík <pemensik> - 0.2.0-3 +- Update APACHE license with the full text in built package + +* Wed Sep 17 2025 Petr Menšík <pemensik> - 0.2.0-2 +- Refresh spec, add downstream license file + +* Wed Sep 17 2025 Petr Menšík <pemensik> - 0.2.0-1 +- Initial + +* Thu Nov 26 2020 oliver-giersch <oliver.giersch> +- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2302630 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tagptr
FEDORA-2025-d7d1498f40 (rust-tagptr-0.2.0-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d7d1498f40
FEDORA-2025-d7d1498f40 (rust-tagptr-0.2.0-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-5868613b9c (rust-tagptr-0.2.0-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5868613b9c
FEDORA-2025-4db2536725 (rust-tagptr-0.2.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4db2536725
FEDORA-2025-4db2536725 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4db2536725 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4db2536725 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-5868613b9c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-5868613b9c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5868613b9c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-62187f3aba (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.fc43, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.fc43, and 14 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-62187f3aba
FEDORA-2025-03ccf34621 (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.fc42, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.fc42, and 14 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-03ccf34621
FEDORA-2025-446e48e16b (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.fc41, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.fc41, and 16 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-446e48e16b
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2ce0610082 (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.el9, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.el9, and 11 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2ce0610082
FEDORA-2025-03ccf34621 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-03ccf34621` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-03ccf34621 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-446e48e16b has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-446e48e16b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-446e48e16b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2ce0610082 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2ce0610082 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-62187f3aba has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-62187f3aba` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-62187f3aba See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4a044a54df (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.el10_2, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.el10_2, and 11 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4a044a54df
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4a044a54df has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4a044a54df See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-62187f3aba (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.fc43, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.fc43, and 14 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-03ccf34621 (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.fc42, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.fc42, and 14 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2ce0610082 (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.el9, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.el9, and 11 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-446e48e16b (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.fc41, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.fc41, and 16 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4a044a54df (rust-async-compression-0.4.19-3.el10_2, rust-brotli-8.0.2-2.el10_2, and 11 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.