Bug 2426656 - Review Request: rust-find-msvc-tools - Find windows-specific tools and MSVC versions
Summary: Review Request: rust-find-msvc-tools - Find windows-specific tools and MSVC v...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/find-msvc-tools
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2392385
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-01-01 16:05 UTC by Fabio Valentini
Modified: 2026-01-08 19:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-01-08 19:35:34 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabio Valentini 2026-01-01 16:05:15 UTC
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-find-msvc-tools.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-find-msvc-tools-0.1.6-1.fc43.src.rpm
Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/find-msvc-tools

Description:
Find windows-specific tools, read MSVC versions from the registry and
from COM interfaces.

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2026-01-01 16:05:18 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140606442

Comment 2 Fabio Valentini 2026-01-01 16:07:39 UTC
This code was previously included in the "cc" crate until it was split into a separate crate as of cc v1.2.35.

Most of this crate is cfg-gated to `cfg(windows)`, but not *all* of it. And apparently it cannot be entirely conditionalized, because that would break cross-compilation (not sure why).

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2026-01-01 18:18:08 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9968432
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2426656-rust-find-msvc-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09968432-rust-find-msvc-tools/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.

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2026-01-06 06:46:16 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, except that the Summary has
been shortened to fit in 80 characters. This is a necessary change, and the
chosen Summary is appropriate.


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/find-msvc-
  tools-0.1.6/CHANGELOG.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions


===== 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", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license". 11 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/2426656-rust-find-msvc-tools/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: 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-
     find-msvc-tools-devel , rust-find-msvc-tools+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.

     Tests are correctly built and executed, but there are zero tests that can
     be run in practice. There is little that this crate should do on
     non-Windows platforms other than compile uneventfully and degrade to a stub.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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=140786403

[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Tests are correctly built and executed, but there are zero tests that can
     be run in practice.

[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-find-msvc-tools-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-find-msvc-tools+default-devel-0.1.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-find-msvc-tools-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/tmpnhba1161')]
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/find-msvc-tools/0.1.6/download#/find-msvc-tools-0.1.6.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 645cbb3a84e60b7531617d5ae4e57f7e27308f6445f5abf653209ea76dec8dff
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 645cbb3a84e60b7531617d5ae4e57f7e27308f6445f5abf653209ea76dec8dff


Requires
--------
rust-find-msvc-tools-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    rust

rust-find-msvc-tools+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(find-msvc-tools)



Provides
--------
rust-find-msvc-tools-devel:
    crate(find-msvc-tools)
    rust-find-msvc-tools-devel

rust-find-msvc-tools+default-devel:
    crate(find-msvc-tools/default)
    rust-find-msvc-tools+default-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2426656
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Java, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 5 Fabio Valentini 2026-01-08 16:37:38 UTC
Thank you for the review!

Comment 6 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-01-08 16:38:11 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-find-msvc-tools

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2026-01-08 19:32:13 UTC
FEDORA-2026-d3f57f9f6c (rust-cc-1.2.51-1.fc44, rust-clap-4.5.54-1.fc44, and 4 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d3f57f9f6c

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2026-01-08 19:35:34 UTC
FEDORA-2026-d3f57f9f6c (rust-cc-1.2.51-1.fc44, rust-clap-4.5.54-1.fc44, and 4 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.