Created attachment 2117847 [details] Configuration file for rust2rpm Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-purl.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-purl-0.1.6-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: A Package URL implementation with customizable package types. Fedora Account System Username: music Required for a rust-cyclonedx-bom package, which will be a new dependency for uv 0.9.11.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9883624 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419774-rust-purl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09883624-rust-purl/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/9883623 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419774-rust-purl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09883623-rust-purl/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/purl-0.1.6/LICENSE 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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). [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-purl-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl+default-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl+package-type-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl+phf-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl+serde-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl+smartstring-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl+unicase-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-purl-0.1.6-1.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/tmp4x1yuikd')] checks: 32, packages: 8 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 59 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: 7 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 53 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/purl/0.1.6/download#/purl-0.1.6.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60ebe4262ae91ddd28c8721111a0a6e9e58860e211fc92116c4bb85c98fd96ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60ebe4262ae91ddd28c8721111a0a6e9e58860e211fc92116c4bb85c98fd96ad https://github.com/phylum-dev/purl/raw/refs/tags/v0.1.6/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93dd22d1a0fbb1ccb4e320a7ac1f5f58c7338eb11f8893756b7819cd1b62b5e3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93dd22d1a0fbb1ccb4e320a7ac1f5f58c7338eb11f8893756b7819cd1b62b5e3 Requires -------- rust-purl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(hex/default) >= 0.4.3 with crate(hex/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(percent-encoding/default) >= 2.2.0 with crate(percent-encoding/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(thiserror/default) >= 2.0.12 with crate(thiserror/default) < 3.0.0~) cargo rust-purl+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(purl) crate(purl/package-type) crate(purl/smartstring) rust-purl+package-type-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(purl) crate(purl/phf) crate(purl/unicase) rust-purl+phf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(phf/default) >= 0.11.1 with crate(phf/default) < 0.12.0~) (crate(phf/macros) >= 0.11.1 with crate(phf/macros) < 0.12.0~) (crate(phf/unicase) >= 0.11.1 with crate(phf/unicase) < 0.12.0~) cargo crate(purl) rust-purl+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.150 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.150 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(purl) rust-purl+smartstring-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(smartstring/default) >= 1.0.1 with crate(smartstring/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(purl) rust-purl+unicase-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(unicase/default) >= 2.6.0 with crate(unicase/default) < 3.0.0~) cargo crate(purl) Provides -------- rust-purl-devel: crate(purl) rust-purl-devel rust-purl+default-devel: crate(purl/default) rust-purl+default-devel rust-purl+package-type-devel: crate(purl/package-type) rust-purl+package-type-devel rust-purl+phf-devel: crate(purl/phf) rust-purl+phf-devel rust-purl+serde-devel: crate(purl/serde) rust-purl+serde-devel rust-purl+smartstring-devel: crate(purl/smartstring) rust-purl+smartstring-devel rust-purl+unicase-devel: crate(purl/unicase) rust-purl+unicase-devel Summary: --------- All good, package is APPROVED
Thank you! https://release-monitoring.org/project/387612/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-purl
FEDORA-2025-5952d37297 (rust-purl-0.1.6-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5952d37297
FEDORA-2025-5952d37297 (rust-purl-0.1.6-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Still a a minor problem here. spec file has %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md however: $ head -1 /usr/share/cargo/registry/purl-0.1.6/src/lib.rs #![doc = include_str!("../README.md")] so package don't work on systems where %doc files are absent (such as build containers). Not a great idea by upstream to mix metadata and source code in this way, but...
Hmm, you are correct, but how did you find that? I suspect this is a widespread problem in packaged Rust crates, as there’s no routine testing of packages without %doc files. In practice, this kind of issue is probably of little practical significance because rust-*-devel packages are really only useful for building other packages, not for direct use by end-users, and mock/koji do install dependencies documentation files. Still, it’s formally a defect, and I can fix it with: doc-files.exclude = [ # These files are included as (documentation) strings in the library, so # compilation fails if they are not present. They therefore must not be # marked as documentation, because packages should be equally useful when # their documentation is not installed. "README.md", ]
When using containers for building the problem shows up, a popular workflow these days. Your fix looks good to me.