Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/xanderlent/90c84e20706ae40d71b3a84d8e79460b/raw/b4c22e376a3f1560002ba799a8e30f68c2fd0e23/rust-include_dir_macros.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/xanderlent/90c84e20706ae40d71b3a84d8e79460b/raw/b4c22e376a3f1560002ba799a8e30f68c2fd0e23/rust-include_dir_macros-0.7.4-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: The procedural macro used by include_dir Fedora Account System Username: xanderlent See also rust2rpm.toml: https://gist.github.com/xanderlent/90c84e20706ae40d71b3a84d8e79460b/raw/b4c22e376a3f1560002ba799a8e30f68c2fd0e23/rust2rpm.toml
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8908508 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2360034-rust-include_dir_macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08908508-rust-include_dir_macros/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 APPROVED, with one minor adjustment requested. === 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 generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. A license file is patched in downstream; this is necessary, is done correctly, and has an appropriate upstream status link. I had an alternative suggestion for the upstream PR, which I mentioned upstream, but that doesn’t affect the patch here. My only quibble is that you should add "-p" to +cp -L %{SOURCE2} . in order to preserve the timestamp on the LICENSE file. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/include_dir_macros-0.7.4/LICENSE 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", "MIT License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2360034-rust- include_dir_macros/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 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: [x]: 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- include_dir_macros-devel , rust-include_dir_macros+default-devel , rust-include_dir_macros+metadata-devel , rust- include_dir_macros+nightly-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Upstream license file is patched in, necessarily and correctly. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132922693 [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Add -p to the "cp" invocation for the license file. [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-include_dir_macros-devel-0.7.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-include_dir_macros+default-devel-0.7.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-include_dir_macros+metadata-devel-0.7.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-include_dir_macros+nightly-devel-0.7.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-include_dir_macros-0.7.4-1.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/tmpmdkdhpoe')] 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://raw.githubusercontent.com/Michael-F-Bryan/include_dir/d3c0eaede1b2449bc8e3a281fdbfd40cfc61f0f4/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9369f62987b3a116111f2edfdc4cc72633e44ddc94d5d0c68659cf537b76a31f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9369f62987b3a116111f2edfdc4cc72633e44ddc94d5d0c68659cf537b76a31f https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/include_dir_macros/0.7.4/download#/include_dir_macros-0.7.4.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7cab85a7ed0bd5f0e76d93846e0147172bed2e2d3f859bcc33a8d9699cad1a75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7cab85a7ed0bd5f0e76d93846e0147172bed2e2d3f859bcc33a8d9699cad1a75 Requires -------- rust-include_dir_macros-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(proc-macro2/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(proc-macro2/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(quote/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(quote/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust rust-include_dir_macros+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(include_dir_macros) rust-include_dir_macros+metadata-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(include_dir_macros) rust-include_dir_macros+nightly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(include_dir_macros) Provides -------- rust-include_dir_macros-devel: crate(include_dir_macros) rust-include_dir_macros-devel rust-include_dir_macros+default-devel: crate(include_dir_macros/default) rust-include_dir_macros+default-devel rust-include_dir_macros+metadata-devel: crate(include_dir_macros/metadata) rust-include_dir_macros+metadata-devel rust-include_dir_macros+nightly-devel: crate(include_dir_macros/nightly) rust-include_dir_macros+nightly-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2360034 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Python, R, Java, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-include_dir_macros
Thanks for the review! I have added the -p flag to preserve timestamps as requested.
FEDORA-2025-db4e9a8341 (rust-include_dir-0.7.4-1.fc41 and rust-include_dir_macros-0.7.4-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-db4e9a8341
FEDORA-2025-df110d4745 (rust-include_dir-0.7.4-1.fc42 and rust-include_dir_macros-0.7.4-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-df110d4745
FEDORA-2025-db4e9a8341 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-db4e9a8341 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-db4e9a8341 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-df110d4745 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-df110d4745 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-df110d4745 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-df110d4745 (rust-include_dir-0.7.4-1.fc42 and rust-include_dir_macros-0.7.4-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-db4e9a8341 (rust-include_dir-0.7.4-1.fc41 and rust-include_dir_macros-0.7.4-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.