Created attachment 2114634 [details] Configuration file for rust2rpm Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-pastel.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: A command-line tool to generate, analyze, convert and manipulate colors. Fedora Account System Username: music
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9802312 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2415245-rust-pastel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09802312-rust-pastel/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9802313 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2415245-rust-pastel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09802313-rust-pastel/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/doc/pastel/colorcheck.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Harmless ===== 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]: 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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [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]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pastel-0.11.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm rust-pastel-devel-0.11.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-pastel+default-devel-0.11.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.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/tmp6qf4toki')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/pastel/0.11.0/download#/pastel-0.11.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27893336b754aa83f25fbedba781132f5861502f2dd3cd6faaf59d03f9c20fc8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27893336b754aa83f25fbedba781132f5861502f2dd3cd6faaf59d03f9c20fc8 Requires -------- pastel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-pastel-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(atty/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(atty/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(clap/cargo) >= 4.0.0 with crate(clap/cargo) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/color) >= 4.0.0 with crate(clap/color) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/default) >= 4.0.0 with crate(clap/default) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/suggestions) >= 4.0.0 with crate(clap/suggestions) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/wrap_help) >= 4.0.0 with crate(clap/wrap_help) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap_complete/default) >= 4.0.0 with crate(clap_complete/default) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap_mangen/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(clap_mangen/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(nom/default) >= 7.1.3 with crate(nom/default) < 8.0.0~) (crate(once_cell/default) >= 1.21.3 with crate(once_cell/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rand/default) >= 0.9.0 with crate(rand/default) < 0.10.0~) (crate(regex/default) >= 1.11.0 with crate(regex/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust rust-pastel+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(pastel) Provides -------- pastel: pastel pastel(x86-64) rust-pastel-devel: crate(pastel) rust-pastel-devel rust-pastel+default-devel: crate(pastel/default) rust-pastel+default-devel Nice tool! All good regarding packaging, package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review! > Nice tool! I agree! It’s a really well-executed idea.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pastel
FEDORA-2025-57078d8405 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-57078d8405
FEDORA-2025-57078d8405 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.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-c12d7191b7 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.fc43, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.fc43, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c12d7191b7
FEDORA-2025-96e78b6c08 (rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.fc42 and rust-rand_xoshiro-0.7.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-96e78b6c08
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-25fb22942a (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.el10_2, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.el10_2, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-25fb22942a
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-e215da39d0 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.el9, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.el9, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-e215da39d0
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-e215da39d0 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-e215da39d0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-96e78b6c08 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-2025-96e78b6c08 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-96e78b6c08 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-c12d7191b7 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-c12d7191b7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c12d7191b7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-25fb22942a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-25fb22942a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-25fb22942a (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.el10_2, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.el10_2, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-e215da39d0 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.el9, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.el9, and 1 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-c12d7191b7 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.fc43, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.fc43, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-96e78b6c08 (rust-pastel-0.11.0-1.fc42, rust-rand_xoshiro0.6-0.6.0-1.fc42, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.