SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-crc32c.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-crc32c-0.6.8-1.fc43.src.rpm Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139808114 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9883765 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419806-rust-crc32c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09883765-rust-crc32c/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 published crate is missing license files. This was fixed upstream in https://github.com/zowens/crc32c/commit/66c7c4905a6cf624cb1e1cbc21e7dd3cbce6faa1, but there hasn’t been a new release since then. You will need to add the license files from that commit as additional sources for now, similar to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fax/blob/c29503f7445d80da0c868ca48af81e69408afc3c/f/rust2rpm.toml. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text The Summary “Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback” is too long, over 80 characters. You’ll need to come up with a shortened one. Perhaps “Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C with software fallback”. You can use package.summary in rust2rpm.toml for this. The patch crc32c-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-dependencies on criterion and rand” should suffice.
> You will need to add the license files from that commit > as additional sources for now, similar to > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fax/blob/ > c29503f7445d80da0c868ca48af81e69408afc3c/f/rust2rpm.toml. Why do I need 28 lines of .toml when I can just add 2 lines in the spec file?
license added.
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #3) > > You will need to add the license files from that commit > > as additional sources for now, similar to > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fax/blob/ > > c29503f7445d80da0c868ca48af81e69408afc3c/f/rust2rpm.toml. > > Why do I need 28 lines of .toml when I can just add 2 lines in the spec file? Well, that’s not quite fair, given the amount of whitespace, commentary, and unrelated configuration in that .toml file. Something like this would suffice: [package] license-files.include = ["LICENSE"] [[package.extra-sources]] number = 10 file = "https://github.com/zowens/crc32c/raw/66c7c4905a6cf624cb1e1cbc21e7dd3cbce6faa1/LICENSE-APACHE" [[package.extra-sources]] number = 11 file = "https://github.com/zowens/crc32c/raw/66c7c4905a6cf624cb1e1cbc21e7dd3cbce6faa1/LICENSE-MIT" [scripts.prep] pre = ["cp -p '%{SOURCE10}' '%{SOURCE11}' ."] But of course patching it in to the spec file manually is fine too. The main advantage of rust2rpm.toml is that you don’t have to repeat the exercise every time you need to re-generate the spec file, e.g. because you need to patch a dependency, but it won’t matter either way if upstream actually makes a release containing the license files.
> advantage of rust2rpm.toml is that you don’t have to repeat the exercise > every time you need to re-generate the spec file, e.g. because you need to > patch a dependency, but it won’t matter either way if upstream actually > makes a release containing the license files. Right, if upstream does a new release it will include the commit, if it doesn't nothing changes, either way it should be static.
This package is APPROVED, but please fix the too-long Summary field on import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/crc32c-0.6.8/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem, due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions - The Summary text is too long: rust-crc32c-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description Please replace this with something no more than 80 characters, like Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C with software fallback You can do this with [package] summary = "<Your text here>" in rust2rpm.toml. I strongly recommend using rust2rpm.toml for this rather than hand-editing the spec file, because the risk of regression to the overlong summary in a future update is high. One way or the other, please do fix this on import. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2419806-rust- crc32c/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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 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: 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: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- crc32c-devel , rust-crc32c+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. License files are correctly patched in 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=142252460 [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-crc32c-devel-0.6.8-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-crc32c+default-devel-0.6.8-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-crc32c-0.6.8-1.fc45.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/tmptoud71w9')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-crc32c+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback rust-crc32c.src: E: summary-too-long Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback rust-crc32c-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 3 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 rust-crc32c+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback rust-crc32c-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Safe implementation for hardware accelerated CRC32C instructions with software fallback 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/crc32c/0.6.8/download#/crc32c-0.6.8.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3a47af21622d091a8f0fb295b88bc886ac74efcc613efc19f5d0b21de5c89e47 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3a47af21622d091a8f0fb295b88bc886ac74efcc613efc19f5d0b21de5c89e47 Requires -------- rust-crc32c-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rustc_version/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(rustc_version/default) < 0.5.0~) cargo rust-crc32c+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(crc32c) Provides -------- rust-crc32c-devel: crate(crc32c) rust-crc32c-devel rust-crc32c+default-devel: crate(crc32c/default) rust-crc32c+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2419806 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
What are you requesting Andreas?
Your package has been approved 2 weeks ago. I still wait for a build of this package, there is still no repository.
Fedora is not my day job, been busy with other things, I will get it done in the next few days.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-crc32c
Peter, 6 weeks ago the package was approved, 3 weeks ago the repository got created. Do you still plan to initially package and **maintain** rust-crc32c? If you don't have time for this, should someone else do the work?
> Do you still plan to initially package and **maintain** rust-crc32c? > > If you don't have time for this, should someone else do the work? I do still intend to maintain it, but it's not my highest priority at the moment, and I have limited capacity and my Fedora time is currently focused on F-44 blockers. As indicated in the blocker list my use for this package is for binwalk 3 and there is concern whether this package is dead upstream so as I result it's not the highest thing in my priority list and I contribute to Fedora in my own spare time. Is the fact that I have not built it yet a blocker for you? Or are you just being aggressive for no particular reason? If the lack if this package build is currently blocking you do add the blockers against the bug and I will adjust my todo list.
I have a request to support S3 in sccache (bug #2437510), but in order to provide that I need to enable it in opendal first and that requires crc32c.
So maybe next time provide useful information at the outset rather than just throwing shade. I try not to block others if I know.
Bit of background to help you understand where this is coming from: I'm the sccache-S3 backend requester. Absence of rust-crc32 and consequently opendal means I need to distribute an sccache binary manually or do cargo builds of sccache on all my CI machine images, so having crc32 packaged would definitely make my life nicer, measurably. Currently, the cargo install sccache[features] step is (with some margin) the main time sink when building the CI containers that our CI runners pull; everything else for CI runners for GNU Radio with a distributed compile artifact caching is in upstream Fedora, so aside from the cargo build, our Fedora CI images are really just `FROM Fedora:44; RUN dnf install -y --refresh …`, which is very desirable. Thanks for taking the package this far, and it would be great if you could go through with it.
FEDORA-2026-5c417e357d (rust-crc32c-0.6.8-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-5c417e357d
FEDORA-2026-4f7fca27b3 (rust-crc32c-0.6.8-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4f7fca27b3
> Thanks for taking the package this far, and it would be great if you could > go through with it. Done for F-43+, not planning on F-42 as it's close to EOL.
FEDORA-2026-5c417e357d 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-2026-5c417e357d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-5c417e357d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-4f7fca27b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-4f7fca27b3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4f7fca27b3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-5c417e357d (rust-crc32c-0.6.8-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.