Created attachment 2111546 [details] Configuration file for rust2rpm Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-icu_collator_data.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-icu_collator_data-2.1.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Data for the icu_decimal crate. Fedora Account System Username: music This is in the dependency tree for uutils 0.3.0.
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-icu_decimal_data.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9750579 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2408421-rust-icu_decimal_data/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09750579-rust-icu_decimal_data/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 Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/icu_decimal_data-2.1.1/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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. [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. [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: 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-icu_decimal_data-devel-2.1.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-icu_decimal_data+default-devel-2.1.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpa7mqg04e')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/icu_decimal_data/2.1.1/download#/icu_decimal_data-2.1.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2905b4044eab2dd848fe84199f9195567b63ab3a93094711501363f63546fef7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2905b4044eab2dd848fe84199f9195567b63ab3a93094711501363f63546fef7 Requires -------- rust-icu_decimal_data-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust rust-icu_decimal_data+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(icu_decimal_data) Provides -------- rust-icu_decimal_data-devel: crate(icu_decimal_data) rust-icu_decimal_data-devel rust-icu_decimal_data+default-devel: crate(icu_decimal_data/default) rust-icu_decimal_data+default-devel All good, package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/386813/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-icu_decimal_data
FEDORA-2025-69565588aa (rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-69565588aa
FEDORA-2025-69565588aa (rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-34030bfae7 (rust-fixed_decimal-0.7.1-1.fc43 and rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-34030bfae7
FEDORA-2025-1dee9d8d2d (rust-fixed_decimal-0.7.1-1.fc42 and rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1dee9d8d2d
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-3390ea67a7 (rust-fixed_decimal-0.7.1-1.el9 and rust-icu_decimal_data-2.1.1-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-3390ea67a7
FEDORA-2025-34030bfae7 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-34030bfae7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-34030bfae7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-3390ea67a7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-3390ea67a7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-1dee9d8d2d 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-2025-1dee9d8d2d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1dee9d8d2d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-3390ea67a7 (rust-fixed_decimal-0.7.1-1.el9, rust-icu_collator-2.1.1-1.el9, and 5 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-34030bfae7 (rust-fixed_decimal-0.7.1-1.fc43, rust-icu_collator-2.1.1-1.fc43, and 3 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-1dee9d8d2d (rust-fixed_decimal-0.7.1-1.fc42, rust-icu_collator-2.1.1-1.fc42, and 3 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.