SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-entropy.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-entropy-0.4.2-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Calculates the Shannon entropy of arrays of bytes and strings FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139808110 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9883764 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419805-rust-entropy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09883764-rust-entropy/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.
The package is APPROVED, but please see the recommendations for better handling the Cargo.toml metadata patch. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated with rust2rpm, plus a entropy-fix-metadata.diff patch, greatly simplifying the review. The patch entropy-fix-metadata.diff should be accompanied by a comment saying what it does, why, and whether or not it is suitable for upstreaming, per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/. You can use package.cargo-toml-patch-comments in rust2rpm.toml for this. Something like “Remove benchmark-only dev-dependency on criterion” should suffice. Furthermore, such metadata patches should be produced by “rust2rpm -p”; it doesn’t look like that was the case here. That’s important because in the general case, metadata patches may affect the contents of the spec file, e.g. when they affect crate features. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/entropy-0.4.2/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious issue; due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm. ===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2419805-rust-entropy/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 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: [-]: 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- entropy-devel , rust-entropy+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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Metadata patch is reasonable and correct, but lacks any comment. [-]: 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=139852426 [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-entropy-devel-0.4.2-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-entropy+default-devel-0.4.2-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-entropy-0.4.2-1.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/tmpx9csm8lf')] 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/entropy/0.4.2/download#/entropy-0.4.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d68716e45ef572f351be6fad93a7bbf35242b4289a2ff75434032e5d73d74cc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d68716e45ef572f351be6fad93a7bbf35242b4289a2ff75434032e5d73d74cc2 Requires -------- rust-entropy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-entropy+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(entropy) Provides -------- rust-entropy-devel: crate(entropy) rust-entropy-devel rust-entropy+default-devel: crate(entropy/default) rust-entropy+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2419805 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, Python, PHP, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH === 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)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-entropy
> - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) FESCo now states the assignee must be a real person I believe.
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #4) > > - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) > > FESCo now states the assignee must be a real person I believe. This applies only to the "main admin" account, not the bugzilla assignee.