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.
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.
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
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,
> 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.)
(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,
Hello Bryan and Fabio, Can you share how to move on for this review request? Thanks,
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)?
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.
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.)
(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 #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.
> # 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.
(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 #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.
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.)
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,
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."
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.
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
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.
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 ?
(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.
If that is your intention, then you forgot to set the "fedora-review" flag to "+".
I just remembered that a few seconds before your most recent comment. Should be all set now.
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
I will sponsor him into the packagers group since we've worked together both upstream and on other Fedora packages for quite a while.
Thanks Richard for the sponsoring!
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,
Keep following the process: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/ You're at: "When your package passes the review [...]"
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-futures-locks
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
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.
@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.
Yes I will work with him to fix this.
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).
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.
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