Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-aws-nitro-eif-ctl/-/raw/main/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec?ref_type=heads SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-aws-nitro-eif-ctl/-/raw/main/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.src.rpm?ref_type=heads&inline=false Description: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
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.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/refs/heads/main/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/raw/refs/heads/main/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10140565 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10140565-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10140611 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10140611-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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.
Same as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440263#c3: per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures, you need an explanation for why the ExclusiveArch or ExcludeArch is required, and once the package is approved, you need to open a tracking bug that blocks the missing architectures, here PPCTracker and F-ExcludeArch-s390x. You don’t have to block F-ExcludeArch-x86 anymore because of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval. In practice, a scratch build with the ExclusiveArch removed (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142580450) shows that the submission *does* successfully compile and pass its tests on all Fedora primary architectures, so if you just drop ExclusiveArch, then you won’t need the tracking bugs.
Thanks, I've dropped ExclusiveArch.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10162069 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10162069-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10162070 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10162070-rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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.
Hmm, this doesn’t seem to be published on crates.io; https://crates.io/crates/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl doesn’t exist. Crate libraries *MUST* be packaged from crates.io sources, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_package_sources. On the other hand, your spec file shows you’re only packaging the tool, krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl, with no -devel binary package providing a crate library interface, so you can still package this under non-crate project guidelines. I recommend dropping use of rust2rpm and just following a template like https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_non_crate_rust_project. Follow non-crate package naming rules, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_package_naming_2, and make the source package krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl rather than rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl. (The rust-* “namespace” is only for libraries and applications packaged from crates.io.) Pay attention to how the linked template includes license terms from %{cargo_license_summary} in the binary package license; you will need to do this too. I’m surprised to see that a manual “BuildRequires: openssl-devel” is required, rather than the dependency being brought in via something like the openssl or native-tls crates, but I haven’t looked at the source code to understand whether this is justified. This is a bit of a red flag: Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Normally, this should be a link to an archive hosted on an upstream forge or VCS interface, or on an official upstream download page. In the rare cases where that’s not possible, there should be a comment explaining where the source code archive comes from and how to reproduce it. In this case, it looks like you have probably written this package specifically for inclusion in Fedora, which is just fine. It’s still a bit weird for, if I understand correctly, the archive uploaded to Fedora’s lookaside cache to be the sole public “upstream” release process.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/refs/heads/main/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/raw/refs/heads/main/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Thanks, I've addressed your comments. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #12) > Hmm, this doesn’t seem to be published on crates.io; > https://crates.io/crates/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl doesn’t exist. Crate > libraries *MUST* be packaged from crates.io sources, > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/ > #_package_sources. > > On the other hand, your spec file shows you’re only packaging the tool, > krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl, with no -devel binary package providing a crate > library interface, so you can still package this under non-crate project > guidelines. > I've done so, and modified the spec file as necessary. The package guidelines state: "Packages for Rust crates from crates.io MUST use rust-$crate as the name of the source package (where $crate is the name of the project on crates.io)." So I'm assuming if the package does *not* come from crates.io (like in this case), it should drop the "rust-" prefix. I've dropped the prefix. > > I’m surprised to see that a manual “BuildRequires: openssl-devel” is > required, rather than the dependency being brought in via something like the > openssl or native-tls crates, but I haven’t looked at the source code to > understand whether this is justified. I used an old spec file as a base for this one, and that required openssl-devel. I've removed that BuildRequire. > > This is a bit of a red flag: > > Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > Normally, this should be a link to an archive hosted on an upstream forge or > VCS interface, or on an official upstream download page. In the rare cases > where that’s not possible, there should be a comment explaining where the > source code archive comes from and how to reproduce it. In this case, it > looks like you have probably written this package specifically for inclusion > in Fedora, which is just fine. It’s still a bit weird for, if I understand > correctly, the archive uploaded to Fedora’s lookaside cache to be the sole > public “upstream” release process. Fixed to point to the upstream release.
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/raw/refs/heads/main/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10179937 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10179937-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10179936 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10179936-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Thanks for the update! This is getting really close. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License tag for the (sub)package with a compiled binary – in this case, for the base package – needs to include the licenses of Rust crate libraries that are statically linked into the executable. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_license_tags, and also the template https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_non_crate_rust_project. When you do a build of the package, observe the output from %{cargo_license_summary}. For this package, that looks like: ### BEGIN LICENSE SUMMARY ### # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT ### END LICENSE SUMMARY ### Paste in the raw license list as a comment above License, and use it to construct an SPDX expression. You can reorder terms, and you can deduplicate equivalent terms. For example, (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) is equivalent to (MIT OR Apache-2.0). Fabio Valentini (FAS: decathorpe) has a convention of (1) source license of the package itself, then (2) single-term licenses in alphabetical order, then (3) sub-expressions in alphabetical order, but without any reordering within the parentheses – all with duplicates removed, e.g. (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) can just be either (MIT OR Apache-2.0) or (Apache-2.0 OR MIT). This isn’t the only reasonable approach, and even just listing terms without deduplication would be acceptable. The result could look something like this: # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT License: %{shrink: Apache-2.0 AND MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Unlicense OR MIT) } As you maintain the package, it’s good to periodically check if the output of %{cargo_license_summary} has changed, especially on major updates. It can also sometimes change due to updates in your dependencies, even if your package hasn’t changed. Some people like to put the source license of the package itself in a SourceLicense field, like: SourceLicense: Apache-2.0 but this is absolutely not required. ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - Consider using the description text for the RPM package description, as I think it’s a bit more, well, descriptive. Since there are no subpackages re-using the same description text, there’s no longer any need to wrap it up in an RPM macro. Consider something like this: %description Tool to configure cached EIF files for the krun-awsnitro runtime for AWS Nitro Enclaves. - There’s no longer any need to explicitly number Sources unless it makes easier for you to refer to multiple sources by number. Instead of Source0: […] you may just write: Source: […] - I think that the source URL %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz could be better written as %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Then the archive name would match the extraction directory name. - The Summary usually starts with a capital letter, and rpmlint does warn about this: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool I don’t think there’s any formal guideline about this, and no change is required. However, would something like this make sense? Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro ===== 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. [!]: 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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260301/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif- ctl/licensecheck.txt Need to account for licenses of statically linked Rust libraries; see Issues. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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 113 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. No usable tests are included, and I am not sure how to test this interactively. [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=142906482 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. No usable tests are included, but everything is set up to compile and run any tests that might appear in the future. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.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/tmp9w9513u3')] checks: 32, packages: 2 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.src: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc45.x86_64.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/tmp02sa0ch1')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/virtee/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/archive/refs/tags/v0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 Requires -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/20260301/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-03-01 09:23:50.997780464 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/20260301/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm-unpacked/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-02-28 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## 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 + Name: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl Version: 0.1.0 @@ -40,3 +50,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Feb 28 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-1 +- initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440262 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/refs/heads/main/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/raw/refs/heads/main/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205742 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205742-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205745 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205745-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/refs/heads/main/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/tylerfanelli/rust-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/raw/refs/heads/main/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.src.rpm Description: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro Fedora Account System Username: tfanelli
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205763 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205763-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/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 Ben Beasley from comment #21) > Thanks for the update! This is getting really close. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > ===== Issues ===== > > - The License tag for the (sub)package with a compiled binary – in this case, > for the base package – needs to include the licenses of Rust crate > libraries > that are statically linked into the executable. > > See > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/ > #_license_tags, > and also the template > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/ > #_non_crate_rust_project. > > When you do a build of the package, observe the output from > %{cargo_license_summary}. For this package, that looks like: > > ### BEGIN LICENSE SUMMARY ### > # Apache-2.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR MIT > # MIT > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 > # Unlicense OR MIT > ### END LICENSE SUMMARY ### > > Paste in the raw license list as a comment above License, and use it to > construct an SPDX expression. You can reorder terms, and you can > deduplicate > equivalent terms. For example, (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) is equivalent to (MIT OR > Apache-2.0). > > Fabio Valentini (FAS: decathorpe) has a convention of (1) source license of > the package itself, then (2) single-term licenses in alphabetical order, > then > (3) sub-expressions in alphabetical order, but without any reordering > within > the parentheses – all with duplicates removed, e.g. (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND > (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) can just be either (MIT OR Apache-2.0) or (Apache-2.0 > OR > MIT). This isn’t the only reasonable approach, and even just listing terms > without deduplication would be acceptable. > > The result could look something like this: > > # Apache-2.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR MIT > # MIT > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 > # Unlicense OR MIT > License: %{shrink: > Apache-2.0 AND > MIT AND > (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND > (Unlicense OR MIT) > } > > As you maintain the package, it’s good to periodically check if the output > of > %{cargo_license_summary} has changed, especially on major updates. It can > also sometimes change due to updates in your dependencies, even if your > package hasn’t changed. > Thanks! I've added the %{cargo_license_summary} output to the specfile. > > ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== > > - Consider using the description text for the RPM package description, as I > think it’s a bit more, well, descriptive. > > Since there are no subpackages re-using the same description text, there’s > no > longer any need to wrap it up in an RPM macro. > > Consider something like this: > > %description > Tool to configure cached EIF files for the krun-awsnitro runtime for AWS > Nitro Enclaves. Sure, I've updated the description. > > - There’s no longer any need to explicitly number Sources unless it makes > easier for you to refer to multiple sources by number. Instead of > > Source0: […] > > you may just write: > > Source: […] > > - I think that the source URL > > %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz > > could be better written as > > %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > Then the archive name would match the extraction directory name. > I've updated the spec file to reflect "Source" and the modified URL. > - The Summary usually starts with a capital letter, and rpmlint does warn > about > this: > > krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro > EIF configuration tool > > I don’t think there’s any formal guideline about this, and no change is > required. However, would something like this make sense? > > Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro > Yes, that makes sense. I've updated the Summary to reflect that. Thanks for your feedback!
> %global _description %{expand: > EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro.} This isn't used and can be dropped
Thanks for working through all the details here! The package is APPROVED, with a small set of corrections that weren’t enough for another round of review, but ought to be dealt with on import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - As Daniel Berrangé wrote, %global _description %{expand: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro.} is unused and should be removed. Instead, put your updated summary text directly in the Summary field, replacing Summary: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool with Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro (note: no period at the end!) It looks like you already did this Summary field update in the uploaded spec file, but didn’t make a new .src.rpm afterward. None of this blocks approval, but please do correct it 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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260315/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif- ctl/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. This is no longer formally required, but it is an excellent idea. In any case, LICENSE.dependencies would satisfy the requirement. [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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 113 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. No usable tests are included, and I am not sure how to test this interactively. [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=143413115 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. No usable tests are included, but everything is set up to compile and run any tests that might appear in the future. [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) Diff is mostly rpmautospec macro expansion, but also, it looks like the Summary was updated in the spec file without making a new .src.rpm. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.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/tmp6fpa5m59')] checks: 32, packages: 2 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.src: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-debuginfo-0.1.0-2.fc45.x86_64.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/tmpc5s8puf6')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/virtee/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/archive/v0.1.0/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 Requires -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/20260315/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-03-15 12:03:48.885859025 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/20260315/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm-unpacked/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-03-10 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,6 +1,16 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + 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 + Name: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl Version: 0.1.0 Release: %autorelease -Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro +Summary: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool # Apache-2.0 @@ -52,3 +62,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Mar 10 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-2 +- Specfile updates + +* Tue Mar 10 2026 Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli> - 0.1.0-1 +- initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440262 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, R, Perl, C/C++, Java, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl
FEDORA-2026-584dcb3827 (krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-584dcb3827
FEDORA-2026-584dcb3827 (krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.