SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-string-cases/rust-string-cases-0.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-string-cases/rust-string-cases.spec Description: String case conversion utilities.
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-string-cases/rust-string-cases-0.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
> # FIXME: no license files detected You have to actually fix this. The MIT license does require the text (copyright and permission statements) to be distributed. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text. Try working with upstream first.
Since the README.md is included as a Rust documentation string, > #![doc = include_str!("./README.md")] it should not be packaged as documentation, because compilation of the crate will fail without it. This is a subtle issue, easy to miss and unlikely to cause problems in practice since Rust library packages are generally only useful for building other Fedora packages, but strictly speaking you should do something about it. You can try something like this in rust2rpm.toml [package] doc-files.exclude = [ # This file is included as a documentation string in the library, so # compilation fails if it is not present. It therefore must not be marked # as documentation, because packages should be equally useful when their # documentation is not installed. "README.md", ]
To being with: https://github.com/kaleidawave/string-cases/issues/2
I tried the rust2rpm.toml suggesting but it doesn't seem to work.
(In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #5) > I tried the rust2rpm.toml suggesting but it doesn't seem to work. Hmm, I just tried copying everything starting with [package] from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2434123#c3 into a rust2rpm.toml file in an empty directory, then running “rust2rpm -I string-cases”, and it worked exactly as expected, generating a spec file like the current submission but without the line “%doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md”. What does it do instead for you?
(In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #4) > https://github.com/kaleidawave/string-cases/issues/2 Upstream fixed this in https://github.com/kaleidawave/string-cases/commit/787ef44c626edc30e1aaf420da5eb14fca0f491a. You would be well-justified in using the new LICENCE file as an additional source (https://github.com/kaleidawave/string-cases/raw/787ef44c626edc30e1aaf420da5eb14fca0f491a/LICENCE) and patching it in using something similar to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-quote-use-macros/blob/rawhide/f/rust2rpm.toml.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #6) > (In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #5) > > I tried the rust2rpm.toml suggesting but it doesn't seem to work. > > Hmm, I just tried copying everything starting with [package] from > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2434123#c3 into a rust2rpm.toml > file in an empty directory, then running “rust2rpm -I string-cases”, and it > worked exactly as expected, generating a spec file like the current > submission but without the line “%doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md”. What does > it do instead for you? That. I was looking for an %exclude line because I'm as new to rust packaging as I am to rust. Thank you. :)
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-string-cases/rust-string-cases-0.2.0-1.fc45.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-string-cases/rust-string-cases.spec Thank you. Required a minor tweak due to upstream spelling.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10189712 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434123-rust-string-cases/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10189712-rust-string-cases/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 The spec file is generated with rust2rpm.toml, simplifying the review. The license text is correctly and necessarily patched in. The text was accepted by upstream, lowering the risk. The README.md file is *not* marked as documentation, which is good: this follows the recommendation in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2434123#c3. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/string- cases-0.2.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem. Due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm. - When you patched in the license text, you installed “LICENCE” (British English spelling) as “LICENSE” (American English spelling). Was this intentional? I would have tended to preserve uupstream’s filename. This isn’t really a problem, and doesn’t block approval. ===== 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/2434123-rust-string-cases/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. [x]: 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- string-cases-devel , rust-string-cases+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. License file is correctly and necessarily patched in from an unreleased upstream commit. [-]: 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=143419761 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-string-cases-devel-0.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-string-cases+default-devel-0.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-string-cases-0.2.0-1.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/tmpziymxk19')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-string-cases-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 rust-string-cases-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/string-cases/0.2.0/download#/string-cases-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a31d23461f9e0fbe756cf9d5a36be93740fe12c8b094409a5f78f0f912ee2b6f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a31d23461f9e0fbe756cf9d5a36be93740fe12c8b094409a5f78f0f912ee2b6f https://github.com/kaleidawave/string-cases/raw/787ef44c626edc30e1aaf420da5eb14fca0f491a/LICENCE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aaad067bc7f076d19efc4c969596e9628ff91d6b951d7d2011686af8680a5724 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aaad067bc7f076d19efc4c969596e9628ff91d6b951d7d2011686af8680a5724 Requires -------- rust-string-cases-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-string-cases+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(string-cases) Provides -------- rust-string-cases-devel: crate(string-cases) rust-string-cases-devel rust-string-cases+default-devel: crate(string-cases/default) rust-string-cases+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2434123-rust-string-cases/srpm/rust-string-cases.spec 2026-03-16 11:37:55.618716567 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2434123-rust-string-cases/srpm-unpacked/rust-string-cases.spec 2026-03-03 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 28 %bcond check 1 @@ -75,3 +85,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Mar 03 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.2.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2434123 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, PHP, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I patched the name. If they don't fix it in a subsequent release, I'll update to match them. Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-string-cases
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b47bb1c301 (rust-string-cases-0.2.0-1.el10_3) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.3. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b47bb1c301
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b47bb1c301 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b47bb1c301 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b47bb1c301 (rust-string-cases-0.2.0-1.el10_3) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.