Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-udisks2/rust-udisks2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-udisks2/rust-udisks2-0.3.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Unofficial crate for interacting with the UDisks2 API. Fedora Account System Username: solomoncyj
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9000382 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2364345-rust-udisks2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09000382-rust-udisks2/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.
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-udisks2/rust-udisks2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-udisks2/rust-udisks2-0.3.1-1.fc43.src.rpm - Uncommitted changes
Created attachment 2088618 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9000382 to 9001496
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9001496 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2364345-rust-udisks2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09001496-rust-udisks2/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.
Regarding the two manual changes I see from rust2rpm’s output, first: -License: LGPL-2.1 +License: LGPL-2.1-or-later Based on the LGPL-2.1-or-later license notice I see in org.freedesktop.UDisks2.xml, it seems like this is a justifiable correction to the deprecated LGPL-2.1 SPDX identifier. However: - This should be patched in Cargo.toml (with rust2rpm -p), not just in the spec file - You should ask upstream to fix this in Cargo.toml and link the PR: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ And second: +sed -i '1d' ./src/lib.rs This removes the line #![doc = include_str!("../README.md")] Sed-patches are still patches: this really ought to have a comment explaining what is happening and why, and either linking an upstream report/PR or explaining why it makes sense for the change to be downstream-only.
It looks like you patched the license file correctly, but now that upstream has responded to your PR, it would probably be better to patch in what was actually merged, https://github.com/FineFindus/udisks-rs/commit/6359a37560f3bbeaab2b8d79ddec245cad9ec08b.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7) > It looks like you patched the license file correctly, but now that upstream > has responded to your PR, it would probably be better to patch in what was > actually merged, > https://github.com/FineFindus/udisks-rs/commit/ > 6359a37560f3bbeaab2b8d79ddec245cad9ec08b. In https://github.com/FineFindus/udisks-rs/commit/6359a37560f3bbeaab2b8d79ddec245cad9ec08b, upstream corrected the license to LGPL-2.0-or-later, not LGPL-2.1-or-later, and patched the LICENSE file to be the LGPL 2.0 text. Upstream explicitly reported that this is consistent with udisks2 licensing and that LGPL-2.0-or-later is their intent. This is also consistent with “either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version” in the XML file. The latest submission still corresponds to the PR, not to what upstream actually committed. Could you please set License to LGPL-2.0-or-later instead of LGPL-2.1-or-later, and apply the same LICENSE-file patch that upstream did, since it seems clear that the LGPL-2.1 metadata was an error?
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-udisks2/rust-udisks2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-udisks2/rust-udisks2-0.3.1-1.fc43.src.rpm this should fix it
+ /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch -f 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file Cargo.toml.rej
This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required.
Created attachment 2090874 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9001496 to 9065972
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9065972 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2364345-rust-udisks2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09065972-rust-udisks2/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 The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The License is changed from LGPL-2.1 to LGPL-2.0-or-later. This is justified by the upstream link. The sed-patch to remove the README.md doctests in lib.rs is adequately justified. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/udisks2-0.3.1/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions. ===== 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", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2364345-rust-udisks2/20250520/2364345-rust- udisks2/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: 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- udisks2-devel , rust-udisks2+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133014775 [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: [!]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-udisks2-devel-0.3.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-udisks2+default-devel-0.3.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-udisks2-0.3.1-1.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/tmpofi3il8l')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-udisks2-devel.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/cargo/registry/udisks2-0.3.1/org.freedesktop.UDisks2.xml 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 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 rust-udisks2-devel.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/cargo/registry/udisks2-0.3.1/org.freedesktop.UDisks2.xml 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/udisks2/0.3.1/download#/udisks2-0.3.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ce19d0471b9df48c9625576e9f2a44b53fa680cfed49cbd7f89904d48c280620 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ce19d0471b9df48c9625576e9f2a44b53fa680cfed49cbd7f89904d48c280620 Requires -------- rust-udisks2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(enumflags2/default) >= 0.7.0 with crate(enumflags2/default) < 0.8.0~) (crate(enumflags2/serde) >= 0.7.0 with crate(enumflags2/serde) < 0.8.0~) (crate(gettext-rs/default) >= 0.7.0 with crate(gettext-rs/default) < 0.8.0~) (crate(gettext-rs/gettext-system) >= 0.7.0 with crate(gettext-rs/gettext-system) < 0.8.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_repr/default) >= 0.1.0 with crate(serde_repr/default) < 0.2.0~) (crate(zbus/default) >= 5.2.0 with crate(zbus/default) < 6.0.0~) cargo rust rust-udisks2+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(udisks2) Provides -------- rust-udisks2-devel: crate(udisks2) rust-udisks2-devel rust-udisks2+default-devel: crate(udisks2/default) rust-udisks2+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2364345-rust-udisks2/20250520/2364345-rust-udisks2/srpm/rust-udisks2.spec 2025-05-20 10:01:29.233200395 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2364345-rust-udisks2/20250520/2364345-rust-udisks2/srpm-unpacked/rust-udisks2.spec 2025-05-19 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 + # Generated by rust2rpm 27 %bcond check 1 @@ -78,3 +88,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue May 20 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0.3.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2364345 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Python, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-udisks2