Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-gzp.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-gzp-1.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Parallel Compression. Fedora Account System Username: asn
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131009297
This package built on Copr and review templates: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8848582
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8848596 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2356887-rust-gzp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08848596-rust-gzp/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 ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "Public domain". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust- gzp/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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- gzp-devel , rust-gzp+default-devel , rust-gzp+any_zlib-devel , rust- gzp+deflate-devel , rust-gzp+deflate_default-devel , rust- gzp+deflate_rust-devel , rust-gzp+deflate_zlib-devel , rust- gzp+deflate_zlib_ng-devel , rust-gzp+flate2-devel , rust- gzp+libdeflate-devel , rust-gzp+libdeflater-devel , rust-gzp+libz-sys- devel , rust-gzp+snap-devel , rust-gzp+snappy-devel , rust- gzp+snappy_default-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. [-]: 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-gzp
> [x]: Package installs properly. Did you actually check this? Because it doesn't: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(libz-sys) >= 1.1.21 with crate(libz-sys) < 2.0.0~) needed by rust-gzp+deflate_zlib-devel-1.0.1-1.fc43.noarch from fedora - nothing provides (crate(libz-sys/libc) >= 1.1.21 with crate(libz-sys/libc) < 2.0.0~) needed by rust-gzp+deflate_zlib-devel-1.0.1-1.fc43.noarch from fedora Problem 2: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(libz-sys) >= 1.1.21 with crate(libz-sys) < 2.0.0~) needed by rust-gzp+libz-sys-devel-1.0.1-1.fc43.noarch from fedora
(Side note: It would be helpful if the commit message for the import had contained the ID of this bug, not just be "The big bang!".)
Ups, fedpkg import only imports what is in the source rpm. rust2rpm.toml is not part of that. My fault.
As far as I can tell, what you imported matched what was reviewed here, so that last comment confuses me even more. Did you *mean* to import something that didn't match what was reviewed?