Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/neeralishah/XML1.2.1/rust-xml.git/plain/rust-xml.spec?id=16db1437b82f3f0f8fea11b6935bc339342db3e0 SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/neeralishah/XML1.2.1/srpm-builds/10073699/rust-xml-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: Add XML1.2.1 to Fedora Build Environment, needed for Rust Projects. This is my first package and need a sponsor Fedora Account System Username: neeralishah
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
Please follow the "${package_name} - ${summary_from_the_spec_file}" template format for the bug title.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10074699 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434843-rust-xml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10074699-rust-xml/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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #1) > Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: > > - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description > or any of your comments > - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS > - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name > specified > in the ticket summary > > > --- > 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. Hi I've already included the SPRM URL: Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/neeralishah/XML1.2.1/rust-xml.git/plain/rust-xml.spec?id=16db1437b82f3f0f8fea11b6935bc339342db3e0 SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/neeralishah/XML1.2.1/srpm-builds/10073699/rust-xml-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: Add XML1.2.1 to Fedora Build Environment, needed for Rust Projects. This is my first package and need a sponsor Fedora Account System Username: neeralishah
Yup, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2434843#c4 reflects a successful COPR build.
For context, the request to add the XML package is for the Guest Proxy Agent: https://github.com/Azure/GuestProxyAgent. GPA is written in rust and has several dependencies in order to build in Fedora environment.
Since this is a new package, please help assign a sponsor to this ticket.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10076465 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2434843-rust-xml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10076465-rust-xml/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.
Note that any packager may review this submission, and then you would be able to import it (and any other approved submissions) once you’ve been sponsored. The reviewer doesn’t necessarily have to be a sponsor, and your sponsor doesn’t necessarily have to have reviewed any package submissions. Also, in case there is any confusion, it is *you* who is seeking sponsorship as a prospective packager, not the *package*, as in Debian. If this package review is approved and you are sponsored into the packager group, you would be the one to maintain the package (with some help from Rust SIG members). By the way, could I ask if you have an application in mind that would use this? Rust crate library packages in Fedora aren’t really suitable for general-purpose development, so they’re really only useful if something depends in them.
I see thank you for the details on sponsorship and package maintainer. The application that requires this package is GPA (I've linked it in my previous comment) which is a Microsoft software that is already deployed across Windows and multiple Linux distros.
This is a very straightforward package, and I found no issues. Package APPROVED. Once you’ve been sponsored into the packager group, you may request a dist-git repository and import and build the package: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#import_commit_and_build_your_package. === 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) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as produced by rust2rpm without a configuration file, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/xml-1.2.1/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: this is not a serious problem and is 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". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/review-rust-xml/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- xml-devel , rust-xml+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. [-]: 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=141686663 [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-xml-devel-1.2.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-xml+default-devel-1.2.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-xml-1.2.1-1.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/tmpw1dujnb_')] 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/xml/1.2.1/download#/xml-1.2.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b8aa498d22c9bbaf482329839bc5620c46be275a19a812e9a22a2b07529a642a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b8aa498d22c9bbaf482329839bc5620c46be275a19a812e9a22a2b07529a642a Requires -------- rust-xml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust rust-xml+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(xml) Provides -------- rust-xml-devel: crate(xml) rust-xml-devel rust-xml+default-devel: crate(xml/default) rust-xml+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rust-xml Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, fonts, C/C++, PHP, Java, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
PS: The "xml" crate is just a re-published version of "xml-rs" (now that the author has access to the non-rs-suffixed name), which we already have in Fedora. Not sure if it makes sense for two different people to maintain effectively the same library.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-xml
FEDORA-2026-ba47e0a9e1 (rust-xml-1.2.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-ba47e0a9e1
FEDORA-2026-ba47e0a9e1 (rust-xml-1.2.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.