SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-either_n/rust-either_n-0.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-either_n/rust-either_n.spec Description: An Either enum with N variants.
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/rust-either_n/rust-either_n-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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm with no configuration file, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/either_n-0.2.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - The files LICENSE, README.md, and src/lib.rs have CRLF (Windows/DOS-style) line terminators. This doesn’t cause a problem in practice, but we should correct it. Something like this will work in rust2rpm.toml: [requires] build = ["dos2unix"] [scripts.prep] pre = [ "# Fix CRLF-terminated files in the released crates.", "find . -type f -exec dos2unix --keepdate '{}' '+'", ] If you prefer, you could be specific about which files to fix: "dos2unix --keepdate LICENSE README.md, src/lib.rs", - The last upstream activity was 9-10 years ago. This is a very simple crate, and the developer is still active on GitHub, so it could just be “done” rather than unmaintained. Still, it’s something to be aware of. - The MIT license text requires the license text (copyright and permission statements) to be distributed with the software, but the LICENSE file contains only the Apache-2.0 text. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text. Since the developer is still active on GitHub, perhaps you can get them to correct this. Our guidelines allow you to take an educated guess and supply a “standard” MIT license text if necessary, but you need to attempt to engage with upstream first, and it’s better if you can at least point to an approved PR. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Licensing is acceptable, but required license text for MIT option is missing. [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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/review-rust-either_n/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. (However, not all required license texts are included.) [-]: 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: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Please attempt to work with upstream to include the missing license text for the MIT option. [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- either_n-devel , rust-either_n+default-devel , rust-either_n+use_std- devel [x]: Package functions as described. Tests pass. [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=142671325 [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-either_n-devel-0.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-either_n+default-devel-0.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-either_n+use_std-devel-0.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-either_n-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/tmpyd_fbua8')] checks: 32, packages: 4 rust-either_n-devel.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/cargo/registry/either_n-0.2.0/README.md rust-either_n+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n+use_std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n+use_std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n.src: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n.src: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 3 rust-either_n-devel.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/cargo/registry/either_n-0.2.0/README.md rust-either_n+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n+use_std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n+use_std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-either_n-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 15 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/either_n/0.2.0/download#/either_n-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4c91ae510829160d5cfb19eb4ae7b6e01d44b767ca8f727c6cee936e53cc9ae5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4c91ae510829160d5cfb19eb4ae7b6e01d44b767ca8f727c6cee936e53cc9ae5 Requires -------- rust-either_n-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-either_n+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(either_n) crate(either_n/use_std) rust-either_n+use_std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(either_n) Provides -------- rust-either_n-devel: crate(either_n) rust-either_n-devel rust-either_n+default-devel: crate(either_n/default) rust-either_n+default-devel rust-either_n+use_std-devel: crate(either_n/use_std) rust-either_n+use_std-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/rust-either_n.spec 2026-02-23 07:20:33.856839287 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/review-rust-either_n/srpm-unpacked/rust-either_n.spec 2026-01-27 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 @@ -79,3 +89,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Jan 27 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 -n rust-either_n Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, Python, R, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you, addressed everything, same URLS. Not sure how to handle the duplicate files in this situation. Filed: https://github.com/cramertj/EitherN-rs/issues/1
(In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #3) > Thank you, addressed everything, same URLS. Thanks. The dos2unix invocation in %prep looks right, but BuildRequires: dos2unix is missing. You can get that by making sure that [requires] build = ["dos2unix"] is present in rust2rpm.toml. > Not sure how to handle the duplicate files in this situation. Something like the following is produced by fedora-review on every Rust library package: - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/either_n-0.2.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files I *meant* to write the following: OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm.toml This is a duplicate listing, not a duplicate installed file; it causes no harm in practice; and avoiding the diagnostic would make all rust2rpm-generated spec files messier. Nothing needs to be changed here. > Filed: > https://github.com/cramertj/EitherN-rs/issues/1 Thanks! I’ll keep an eye on this and be ready to re-review once there’s a submission with MIT license text included.
I see that the uploaded spec file (unlike the spec file in the uploaded RPM) has these lines in rust2rpm.toml for all the rust-either_n+<foo>-devel feature metapackages: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} It’s not necessary to add these: these metapackages already have exact-version dependencies like "crate(either_n) = 0.2.0" that will be satisfied by the main -devel package. If it were really necessary for feature metapackages to have even stricter dependencies including release numbers, then that ought to be changed in rust2rpm rather than repeatedly customizing individual spec files. Besides that, these added dependencies are on a "rust-either_n" binary package, which doesn’t exist, rather than on "rust-either_n-devel", so the resulting feature metapackages would not be installable.
Ok, thanks. Updated the non-license bits.