Bug 2305524 - Review Request: rust-futures-locks - Futures-aware lock primitives
Summary: Review Request: rust-futures-locks - Futures-aware lock primitives
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bryan Gurney
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/futures-locks
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2314453
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-08-17 12:34 UTC by Ming Lei
Modified: 2024-09-24 15:42 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 2314453 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-09-22 12:41:40 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
bgurney: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ming Lei 2024-08-17 12:34:30 UTC
Spec URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/minlei2/futures-locks/
SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/minlei2/futures-locks/
Description: 
   A library of Futures-aware locking primitives. These locks can safely
   be used in asynchronous environments like Tokio. When they block,
   they'll only block a single task, not the entire reactor.
Fedora Account System Username: minlei2
Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/minlei2/futures-locks/build/7915540/

BTW, this is my first package and I need a sponsor.

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2024-08-20 10:35:32 UTC
Adapted bug title to conform to the template.

Note that the URLs also don't follow the template.
They must be direct URLs to raw .spec and .srpm files, respectively, not some HTTP landing page.
Otherwise automated tools cannot process this ticket.

I recommend using the "fedora-create-review" script to create tickets for package reviews.
It automatically formats the ticket according to the expected template and uses correct URLs.

Comment 2 Ming Lei 2024-08-20 15:57:12 UTC
Hi Fabio,

Thanks for the look!

I feel fedora-create-review is one great tool for review from its manual.

But it doesn't work in my Fedora laptop & VM:

- sometimes '<Fault 306: 'The API key you specified is invalid. Please check that you typed it correctly.'>' is dumped, but
I am sure new RHBZ API key(key id) is created and provided

- sometimes, there is kerbos auth issue

Can you provide some hint about how to solve these issues?

Thanks,
Ming

Comment 3 Ming Lei 2024-08-20 16:11:09 UTC
Hi Fabio,

oops, please ignore the above api key issue in comment 2, looks I misused key id as the realy api key.

After using the real key string, fedora-create-review can advance more steps, but still see new errors:

```
INFO: Using RHBugzilla for URL containing .redhat.com
Reviews for a package of the same name have been found:
  #2305524 ASSIGNED   - bgurney - Review Request: rust-futures-locks - Futures-aware lock primitives - 
	 
Do you want to proceed anyway? [y/N]y
Uploading files into fedorapeople
Uploading error(s):
```

Looks it is always existed immediately after dumpping 'Uploading error(s)'.

Thanks,

Comment 4 Fabio Valentini 2024-08-20 16:52:24 UTC
> Uploading files into fedorapeople
> Uploading error(s):

Are you not a packager yet?
Only people in the "packager" group have SSH access to fedorapeople.org.

(Also, please don't use fedora-create-review for this package again, it will just file a duplicate ticket.)

Comment 5 Ming Lei 2024-08-20 23:04:26 UTC
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4)
> > Uploading files into fedorapeople
> > Uploading error(s):
> 
> Are you not a packager yet?
> Only people in the "packager" group have SSH access to fedorapeople.org.

No, I am not in "packager" group, can I join it? I have other new packages to
create too...

Otherwise, is there other way to create review request by following template?


> 
> (Also, please don't use fedora-create-review for this package again, it will
> just file a duplicate ticket.)

OK.


Thanks,

Comment 6 Ming Lei 2024-08-26 01:34:01 UTC
Hello Bryan and Fabio,

Can you share how to move on for this review request?

Thanks,

Comment 7 Bryan Gurney 2024-08-28 14:10:51 UTC
There's a number of items that I need to manually review (this is normal for package reviews), but there's one concern from the licensecheck scan:

The output of "licensecheck.txt" shows the following:

---
*No copyright* Apache License 2.0
---------------------------------
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/LICENSE-APACHE

MIT License
-----------
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/LICENSE-MIT

Unknown or generated
--------------------
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/.cargo_vcs_info.json
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/CHANGELOG.md
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/Cargo.toml
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/Cargo.toml.orig
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/README.md
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/src/lib.rs
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/src/mutex.rs
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/src/rwlock.rs
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/tests/mutex.rs
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/tests/rwlock.rs
rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-build/futures-locks-0.7.1/tests/test.rs


None of the 6 source files have license headers, but there are license files for Apache 2.0 and MIT.  Are those license files enough to establish the software license, or do the upstream files need to have an Apache 2.0 header applied (as suggested by LICENSE-APACHE)?

Comment 8 Fabio Valentini 2024-08-28 17:05:40 UTC
Unless there's evidence to the contrary (like different headers in specific source files), we assume that the license specified in Cargo.toml applies to the whole project. In this case, license texts for both licenses are present, so that's all we need.

Comment 9 Bryan Gurney 2024-08-29 21:43:14 UTC
Ok; thanks, Fabio.

One other question, since I still haven't used rpmautospec enough to be familiar with it: is this item OK to pass, given the header of the spec file?

---
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
---

(head of rust-futures-locks.spec:)
---
## START: Set by rpmautospec
## (rpmautospec version 0.6.5)
## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
    release_number = 1;
    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
---

(This section is the only occurrence of "define" in the spec file.)

Comment 10 Fabio Valentini 2024-08-29 22:03:27 UTC
(In reply to Bryan Gurney from comment #9)
> Ok; thanks, Fabio.
> 
> One other question, since I still haven't used rpmautospec enough to be
> familiar with it: is this item OK to pass, given the header of the spec file?
> 
> (head of rust-futures-locks.spec:)
> ---
> ## START: Set by rpmautospec
> ## (rpmautospec version 0.6.5)
> ## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
> %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
>     release_number = 1;
>     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
> ---
> 
> (This section is the only occurrence of "define" in the spec file.)

This section should only be present in spec files that were already processed by rpmautospec, i.e. you're not looking at the original.

In general, the spec file linked by the COPR build is not really suitable for doing a package review, since it's not necessarily the original / unprocessed version, but the one from inside the uploaded SRPM file.

(having separately uploaded and viewable spec and SRPM files, as required for reviews, helps with this)

Comment 11 Ming Lei 2024-09-02 10:52:49 UTC
Comment #10 is addressed in this V2 request, please review, thanks!

Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/rust-futures-locks.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: 
   A library of Futures-aware locking primitives. These locks can safely
   be used in asynchronous environments like Tokio. When they block,
   they'll only block a single task, not the entire reactor.
Fedora Account System Username: minlei2
Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/minlei2/futures-locks/build/7963627/

BTW, this is my first package and I need a sponsor.

Comment 12 Fabio Valentini 2024-09-02 11:06:45 UTC
> # Generated by rust2rpm 25

This is strange - rust2rpm v26 has been out for half a year.
The system you generated this spec on must be seriously out of date.

Comment 13 Ming Lei 2024-09-02 11:13:56 UTC
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #12)
> > # Generated by rust2rpm 25
> 
> This is strange - rust2rpm v26 has been out for half a year.
> The system you generated this spec on must be seriously out of date.

Yeah, it is generated from another machine.

I will genereate it on my F40 machine soon.

Comment 14 Ming Lei 2024-09-02 11:15:29 UTC
Comment #10 and comment #11 is addressed in this V3 request, please review, thanks!

Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/v3/rust-futures-locks.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/v3/rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: 
   A library of Futures-aware locking primitives. These locks can safely
   be used in asynchronous environments like Tokio. When they block,
   they'll only block a single task, not the entire reactor.
Fedora Account System Username: minlei2

BTW, this is my first package and I need a sponsor.

Comment 15 Bryan Gurney 2024-09-04 14:43:19 UTC
I have a review ready to post, but there's one last item to update: the "rust-futures-locks.0.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm" file linked to in comment #14 still contains the old rust-futures-lock.spec file, and so this test is failing:

[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

I was able to fix that by downloading the rust-futures-locks.spec file as in the URL, and running the following:

$ spectool -g rust-futures-locks.spec
$ mkdir SOURCES
$ mkdir SPECS
$ cp rust-futures-locks.spec SPECS/
$ cp futures-locks-0.7.1.crate SOURCES/
$ mock --buildsrpm -r /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg --sources SOURCES/ --spec SPECS/rust-futures-locks.spec --resultdir SRPMS/

...which creates the file "rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc42.src.rpm" (with the "%dist" value of ".fc42", since that's where Rawhide is now.)

Comment 16 Ming Lei 2024-09-05 03:30:49 UTC
Hi Bryan,

Follows the difference between URL spec and the spec in src.rpm. All extra change are added
by rpmautospec. So what kind of spec should be provided in revew request? It is the spec file
generated by `rust2rpm` or the one in the final src.rpm?

[root@ktest-39 v3]# diff -u rust-futures-locks.spec verify/rust-futures-locks.spec 
--- rust-futures-locks.spec	2024-09-02 11:12:21.000000000 +0000
+++ verify/rust-futures-locks.spec	2024-08-17 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    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 26
 %bcond_without check
 %global debug_package %{nil}
@@ -80,4 +90,7 @@
 %endif
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Sat Aug 17 2024 John Doe <packager> - 0.7.1-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


The build is successful:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/minlei2/futures-locks/build/7984583/

So can you share what the test failure is?

Thanks,

Comment 17 Bryan Gurney 2024-09-05 12:23:25 UTC
The test failure is from a difference in the spec file in the URL, and the spec file in the source RPM (in the other URL).

Yes, COPR's build is successful, but when "fedora-review" runs, it performs its own build, and comparisons between the files given (when I run "fedora-review -n rust-futures-locks").

So your spec file in https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/v3/rust-futures-locks.spec is good.

But could you please re-generate the source RPM file, to incorporate that in a "v4" sub-directory, by running these commands:

$ spectool -g rust-futures-locks.spec
$ mkdir SOURCES
$ mkdir SPECS
$ cp rust-futures-locks.spec SPECS/
$ cp futures-locks-0.7.1.crate SOURCES/
$ mock --buildsrpm -r /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg --sources SOURCES/ --spec SPECS/rust-futures-locks.spec --resultdir SRPMS/

That's what I did, on an F40 virtual machine, and it now passes that test:

"[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM."

Comment 18 Ming Lei 2024-09-05 14:56:27 UTC
Hi Bryan,

Comment #15 and comment #17 are addressed in this V4 request with the approach you provided, please review, thanks!

Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/rust-futures-locks.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/minlei/fedpkg/futures-locks/rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: 
   A library of Futures-aware locking primitives. These locks can safely
   be used in asynchronous environments like Tokio. When they block,
   they'll only block a single task, not the entire reactor.
Fedora Account System Username: minlei2

BTW, this is my first package and I need a sponsor.

Comment 19 Bryan Gurney 2024-09-05 17:47:29 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/futures-
  locks-0.7.1/CHANGELOG.md
  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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bgurney/pkgreviews/20240905_minglei_rust-
     futures-locks/review-rust-futures-locks/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: 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-
     futures-locks-devel , rust-futures-locks+default-devel , rust-futures-
     locks+tokio-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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-futures-locks-devel-0.7.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-futures-locks+default-devel-0.7.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-futures-locks+tokio-devel-0.7.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc42.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/tmp6u4a4lb9')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

rust-futures-locks+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-futures-locks+tokio-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 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-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-futures-locks+tokio-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-futures-locks+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/futures-locks/0.7.1/download#/futures-locks-0.7.1.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 45ec6fe3675af967e67c5536c0b9d44e34e6c52f86bedc4ea49c5317b8e94d06
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45ec6fe3675af967e67c5536c0b9d44e34e6c52f86bedc4ea49c5317b8e94d06


Requires
--------
rust-futures-locks-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(futures-channel/default) >= 0.3.1 with crate(futures-channel/default) < 0.4.0~)
    (crate(futures-task/default) >= 0.3.1 with crate(futures-task/default) < 0.4.0~)
    cargo

rust-futures-locks+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(futures-locks)
    crate(futures-locks/tokio)

rust-futures-locks+tokio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(tokio/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(tokio/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(tokio/rt) >= 1.0.0 with crate(tokio/rt) < 2.0.0~)
    cargo
    crate(futures-locks)



Provides
--------
rust-futures-locks-devel:
    crate(futures-locks)
    rust-futures-locks-devel

rust-futures-locks+default-devel:
    crate(futures-locks/default)
    rust-futures-locks+default-devel

rust-futures-locks+tokio-devel:
    crate(futures-locks/tokio)
    rust-futures-locks+tokio-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rust-futures-locks
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 20 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-06 09:05:02 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7988769
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2305524-rust-futures-locks/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07988769-rust-futures-locks/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.

Comment 21 Fabio Valentini 2024-09-09 18:57:41 UTC
This looks pretty good to me now.

Did you intend to approve this package in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305524#c19 ?

Comment 22 Bryan Gurney 2024-09-09 19:13:51 UTC
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #21)
> This looks pretty good to me now.
> 
> Did you intend to approve this package in
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305524#c19 ?

Yes, I approve this package, with the review that I posted.

Comment 23 Fabio Valentini 2024-09-09 19:18:15 UTC
If that is your intention, then you forgot to set the "fedora-review" flag to "+".

Comment 24 Bryan Gurney 2024-09-09 19:20:05 UTC
I just remembered that a few seconds before your most recent comment.  Should be all set now.

Comment 25 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-12 00:16:48 UTC
Hello @minlei2,
since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package
sponsor before it can be accepted.

A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through
the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future
maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to
packaging.

You can find all active sponsors here:
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/

I created a sponsorship request for you:
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/680
Please take a look and make sure the information is correct.

Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

Comment 26 Richard W.M. Jones 2024-09-12 13:55:52 UTC
I will sponsor him into the packagers group since we've worked together both upstream
and on other Fedora packages for quite a while.

Comment 27 Ming Lei 2024-09-12 14:07:44 UTC
Thanks Richard for the sponsoring!

Comment 28 Ming Lei 2024-09-19 01:54:31 UTC
Hello Richard, Bryan and Fabio,

Can you share if there is anything we need to do for merging this package?

BTW, I have other packages which depend on this one.

Thanks,

Comment 29 Richard W.M. Jones 2024-09-19 08:00:34 UTC
Keep following the process:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/

You're at: "When your package passes the review [...]"

Comment 30 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-09-20 08:11:49 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-futures-locks

Comment 31 Fedora Update System 2024-09-22 12:36:56 UTC
FEDORA-2024-dc0565b565 (rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dc0565b565

Comment 32 Fedora Update System 2024-09-22 12:41:40 UTC
FEDORA-2024-dc0565b565 (rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 33 Fabio Valentini 2024-09-23 12:28:26 UTC
@rjones can you please work with Ming Lei to address some issues with the package import?

Notably, the source file was committed into git *and* uploaded to the lookaside cache:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-futures-locks/tree/rawhide

See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2308448#c30 for the same problem in rublk, but *much worse* because the vendor tarball is like a few dozen MB big, making working with the dist-git repo very bad.

Comment 34 Richard W.M. Jones 2024-09-23 12:37:42 UTC
Yes I will work with him to fix this.

Comment 35 Fabio Valentini 2024-09-23 12:44:16 UTC
Thank you!

Note that if you want to drop the tarballs from the git history entirely, you'll likely need releng / infra help (if it's even possible).

Comment 36 Richard W.M. Jones 2024-09-23 12:46:45 UTC
I have an unrelated (I think?) problem building the updated package:

  123828883 buildArch (rust-futures-locks-0.7.1-2.fc42.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> FAILED: Fault: <Fault 1: 'Traceback (most recent call last):\n  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/koji/daemon.py", line 1505, in runTask\n    response = (handler.run(),)\n                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/koji/tasks.py", line 338, in run\n    self.createWorkdir()\n  File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/koji/tasks.py", line 364, in createWorkdir\n    os.makedirs(self.workdir)\n  File "<frozen os>", line 225, in makedirs\nOSError: [Errno 30] Read-only file system: \'/var/tmp/koji/tasks/8883/123828883\'\n'>

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=123828883

I will try to rerun the build to see if it persists.

Comment 37 Richard W.M. Jones 2024-09-23 13:09:25 UTC
Problem went away after rebuilding.

There is an infra ticket here about possibly removing the files from dist-git:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/12196


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.