Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon-1.4.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Make retry like a built-in feature provided by Rust. Fedora Account System Username: asn
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131007376
This package built on Copr and review templates: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8848267
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8848282 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356855-rust-backon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08848282-rust-backon/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.
Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon-1.5.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon-1.5.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Created attachment 2085427 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8848282 to 8914792
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8914792 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356855-rust-backon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08914792-rust-backon/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
A local build I did succeeded, but there are subpackages that fail to install: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(embassy-time/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(embassy-time/default) < 0.5.0~) needed by rust-backon+embassy-time-devel-1.5.0-1.fc43.noarch from @commandline Problem 2: package rust-backon+embassy-sleep-devel-1.5.0-1.fc43.noarch from @commandline requires crate(backon/embassy-time) = 1.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(embassy-time/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(embassy-time/default) < 0.5.0~) needed by rust-backon+embassy-time-devel-1.5.0-1.fc43.noarch from @commandline It also looks like the project made a few strange decisions when they set up their feature flags, which results in "gloo-timers-sleep" being empty and useless on non-WASM platforms. Might be a good idea to drop that feature from the package as well.
I've disabled default features and hand picked them ;-) Thanks for checking.
Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon-1.4.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-backon-1.5.0-2.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8921828 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356855-rust-backon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08921828-rust-backon/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.
Created attachment 2085818 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8921827 to 8921828
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8921827 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356855-rust-backon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08921827-rust-backon/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-backon/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- backon-devel , rust-backon+default-devel , rust-backon+embassy-sleep- devel , rust-backon+embassy-time-devel , rust-backon+futures-timer- devel , rust-backon+futures-timer-sleep-devel , rust-backon+gloo- timers-sleep-devel , rust-backon+std-devel , rust-backon+std-blocking- sleep-devel , rust-backon+tokio-devel , rust-backon+tokio-sleep-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-backon
(In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #10) > I've disabled default features and hand picked them ;-) Thanks for checking. I don't understand what you meant to say with this. Also you actually didn't fix the issue I pointed out: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2361738
Sent a PR to fix the issue (and the invalid rust2rpm.toml config file): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-backon/pull-request/1