Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/xanderlent/1bd15943293a37c97f58ebdaf3b24d3f/raw/b2cb03958e911d1eedc0087ba5d4888863eb10d0/rust-macro_rules_attribute.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/xanderlent/1bd15943293a37c97f58ebdaf3b24d3f/raw/b2cb03958e911d1eedc0087ba5d4888863eb10d0/rust-macro_rules_attribute-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Use declarative macros in attribute or derive position Fedora Account System Username: xanderlent This is yet another dependency of rust-tokenizers. Another small crate, but with a license fixup. Depends on rust-macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8881508 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2358542-rust-macro_rules_attribute/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08881508-rust-macro_rules_attribute/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.
Failure is expected due to missing dep.
Same comment as bug 2358541: The Cargo.toml patch changing the license expression *really* needs an explanatory comment and upstream status. Linking https://github.com/danielhenrymantilla/macro_rules_attribute-rs/commit/ddcf04f30717c80a37911cb311dac5dc20c35ae6 should suffice.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The manual dependency on libpeas-loader-python%{_isa} is reasonable since it apparently cannot be generated; I’m assuming that there is an indirect dlopen()/ctypes involved at some point in the chain. The comment justifying it (“required by yt-dlp enhancer”) could be more detailed, but is adequate. Similarly, the manual dependency on python3dist(yt-dlp) is reasonable given that this is not a Python library package and there is no .dist-info directory for the Python code it ships (so there can be no Python dependency metadata). ===== Issues ===== - Given that the Python sources in the plugins are used by importing them rather than by executing them as scripts, they must be bytecode-compiled. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_and_bytecode_cache This doesn’t happen automatically because they aren’t in one of the paths covered by the brp-python-bytecompile BRP script, but you can do it manually. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_manual_byte_compilation https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#py_byte_compile Add: BuildRequires: python3-devel Then, at the end of %install: %py_byte_compile %{python3} %{buildroot}%{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp Finally, put %pycached before each .py file in the %files list, like: %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_dash.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_direct.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_hls.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_overrides.py - Normally, I would say that you should install README.md as documentation: %doc README.md Given how trivial and nearly useless this README.md file is, I think you can justify continuing to omit it, if you want to. - The LGPL-2.1-or-later license notices and text contain a street address for the Free Software Foundation that is obsolete since they (recently) became a remote-only organization. clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE I opened https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/pull/15 to fix this upstream. No change is required in the package submission: I don’t recommend patching this downstream, especially before upstream reviews my PR. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. These are not in the system linker path, and they *appear* to be correctly-installed plugins for clapper. This is a correct use of unversioned .so files. clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. I’m assuming you have tested this interactively, or will do so. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream provides no tests. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm clapper-enhancers-0.8.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpl2ej7a8g')] checks: 32, packages: 2 clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('lbry', '%description -l en_US lbry -> library') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('peertube', '%description -l en_US peertube -> peer tube, peer-tube, perturbed') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.spec: W: no-%check-section clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(x86-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpa4dird99')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2 clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(x86-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 17 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.8 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/archive/0.8.2/clapper-enhancers-0.8.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2d7a00ba4a14eef975bba34448109022fc9a8bd21c9301b9f1a20e3e5851097 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2d7a00ba4a14eef975bba34448109022fc9a8bd21c9301b9f1a20e3e5851097 Requires -------- clapper-enhancers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libclapper-0.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libpeas-2.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-loader-python(x86-64) libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) python3dist(yt-dlp) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- clapper-enhancers: clapper-enhancers clapper-enhancers(x86-64) libclapper-lbry.so()(64bit) libclapper-peertube.so()(64bit) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-05-31 09:21:16.631059996 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm-unpacked/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-05-29 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -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 = 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 + %global _clapperenhdir /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers @@ -60,3 +70,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri May 30 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 0.8.2-1 +- initial package for Fedora +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369375 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Hi, thanks for claiming this review! I'll try to get a revised package out soon for this one as well. (That said, I think Comment 4 belongs to bug 2369375.)
(In reply to Alexander Lent from comment #5) > Hi, thanks for claiming this review! I'll try to get a revised package out > soon for this one as well. > > (That said, I think Comment 4 belongs to bug 2369375.) Indeed, thanks. Here’s what I meant to post: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/macro_rules_attribute-0.2.0/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious problem; due to a reasonable rust2rpm design decision. - The Cargo.toml patch changing the license expression *really* needs an explanatory comment and upstream status. In bug 2358541 for rust-macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro, you added: # * License metadata was incorrect, see maintainer-accepted patch # * https://github.com/danielhenrymantilla/macro_rules_attribute-rs/commit/ddcf04f30717c80a37911cb311dac5dc20c35ae6 # * and the fix for the subpackage # * https://github.com/danielhenrymantilla/macro_rules_attribute-rs/pull/28 For this package, you can add: # * License metadata was incorrect, see maintainer-accepted patch # * https://github.com/danielhenrymantilla/macro_rules_attribute-rs/commit/ddcf04f30717c80a37911cb311dac5dc20c35ae6 - Please exclude the maintainer shell scripts from the crate to avoid generating an unnecessary dependency on /usr/bin/sh in rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel. (I know there will always be a POSIX shell installed in the buildroot, but it’s still right in principle to minimize dependencies.) Since these are not useful to anyone for building the crate, I suggested the change upstream in https://github.com/danielhenrymantilla/macro_rules_attribute-rs/pull/29. You can consult that PR for the necessary Cargo.toml line, and you should link it in your patch comment to provide upstream status for the change. ===== 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", "zlib License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2358542-rust- macro_rules_attribute/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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- macro_rules_attribute-devel , rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel , rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel , rust- macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (Tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. License metadata patch is correct but needs status/justification. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I did not bother checking this, as it would have required a COPR build with rust-macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmppfabijyo')] checks: 32, packages: 5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/macro_rules_attribute/0.2.0/download#/macro_rules_attribute-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8a82271f7bc033d84bbca59a3ce3e4159938cb08a9c3aebbe54d215131518a13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8a82271f7bc033d84bbca59a3ce3e4159938cb08a9c3aebbe54d215131518a13 Requires -------- rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(paste/default) >= 1.0.7 with crate(paste/default) < 2.0.0~) /usr/bin/sh cargo rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute) rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute) rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro/verbose-expansions) >= 0.2.0 with crate(macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro/verbose-expansions) < 0.3.0~) cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute) Provides -------- rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute) rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute/default) rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute/better-docs) rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute/verbose-expansions) rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L mra_deps/ -b 2358542 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Python, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/mra_deps/rust-macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro+default-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/mra_deps/rust-macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/mra_deps/rust-macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro+verbose-expansions-devel-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
Thanks for pointing out the license comment, and for making me aware of the bundled shell files that ought to be removed. I'll try to remember to check for extra files like that going forward. Upstream released a minor version bump with your suggested changes, obsoleting the manual configuration of rust2rpm. I've reworked the spec and SRPM accordingly for 0.2.2: Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/xanderlent/1bd15943293a37c97f58ebdaf3b24d3f/raw/fa3f358f3f1790aad707a579bd1c8d195582afcc/rust-macro_rules_attribute.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/xanderlent/1bd15943293a37c97f58ebdaf3b24d3f/raw/fa3f358f3f1790aad707a579bd1c8d195582afcc/rust-macro_rules_attribute-0.2.2-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9120276 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2358542-rust-macro_rules_attribute/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09120276-rust-macro_rules_attribute/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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
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 filter (*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) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, greatly simplifying the review. The license expression was corrected upstream, and the shell scripts were removed from the crate upstream. Now nothing needs to be patched dowstream at all, which is great. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/macro_rules_attribute-0.2.2/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious problem; due to a reasonable rust2rpm design decision. ===== 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", "zlib License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2358542-rust- macro_rules_attribute/20250609/2358542-rust- macro_rules_attribute/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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- macro_rules_attribute-devel , rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel , rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel , rust- macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (Tests pass.) [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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I do not expect any problems, but I did not explicitly test the latest submission. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel-0.2.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel-0.2.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel-0.2.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel-0.2.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-macro_rules_attribute-0.2.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp2boyjuxa')] checks: 32, packages: 5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/macro_rules_attribute/0.2.2/download#/macro_rules_attribute-0.2.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65049d7923698040cd0b1ddcced9b0eb14dd22c5f86ae59c3740eab64a676520 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65049d7923698040cd0b1ddcced9b0eb14dd22c5f86ae59c3740eab64a676520 Requires -------- rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(paste/default) >= 1.0.7 with crate(paste/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro/default) rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute) rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute) rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(macro_rules_attribute) crate(macro_rules_attribute-proc_macro/verbose-expansions) Provides -------- rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute) rust-macro_rules_attribute-devel rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute/default) rust-macro_rules_attribute+default-devel rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute/better-docs) rust-macro_rules_attribute+better-docs-devel rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel: crate(macro_rules_attribute/verbose-expansions) rust-macro_rules_attribute+verbose-expansions-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2358542 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, fonts, PHP, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-macro_rules_attribute
FEDORA-2025-09b48e134a (rust-macro_rules_attribute-0.2.2-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-09b48e134a
FEDORA-2025-09b48e134a (rust-macro_rules_attribute-0.2.2-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.