Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-smol-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-smol-macros-0.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Macros for setting up a smol runtime. Fedora Account System Username: asn This depends on rust-unsend (bug #2442346) builds are here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/asn/kirmes/builds/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10164720 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2442348-rust-smol-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10164720-rust-smol-macros/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.
Spec URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-smol-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://asn.fedorapeople.org/rust-smol-macros-0.1.1-2.fc45.src.rpm rpmautospec generate-changelog | head -2 * Mon Mar 02 2026 Andreas Schneider <asn> - 0.1.1-2 - Remove usage of the unsend crate
Created attachment 2131818 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10164720 to 10185518
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185518 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2442348-rust-smol-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185518-rust-smol-macros/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 APPROVED. === 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 generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. A metadata patch and accompanying source-code patch remove the test dependency on the unsend crate. This is properly implemented, well-justified, and adequately documented. An upstream link is present. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/smol- macros-0.1.1/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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2442348-rust-smol- macros/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- smol-macros-devel , rust-smol-macros+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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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=143542507 [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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-smol-macros-devel-0.1.1-2.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-smol-macros+default-devel-0.1.1-2.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-smol-macros-0.1.1-2.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/tmpnealru0t')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 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: 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/smol-macros/0.1.1/download#/smol-macros-0.1.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfcaedb62e0475a6898988138995ec7b1e5d116167a72bb12c7b59d0649fbbc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfcaedb62e0475a6898988138995ec7b1e5d116167a72bb12c7b59d0649fbbc2 Requires -------- rust-smol-macros-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(async-executor/default) >= 1.6.0 with crate(async-executor/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(async-io/default) >= 2.2.0 with crate(async-io/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(async-lock/default) >= 3.1.2 with crate(async-lock/default) < 4.0.0~) (crate(event-listener/default) >= 5.1.0 with crate(event-listener/default) < 6.0.0~) (crate(futures-lite) >= 2.0.1 with crate(futures-lite) < 3.0.0~) cargo rust rust-smol-macros+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(smol-macros) Provides -------- rust-smol-macros-devel: crate(smol-macros) rust-smol-macros-devel rust-smol-macros+default-devel: crate(smol-macros/default) rust-smol-macros+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2442348-rust-smol-macros/srpm/rust-smol-macros.spec 2026-03-20 10:47:36.534687556 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2442348-rust-smol-macros/srpm-unpacked/rust-smol-macros.spec 2026-03-02 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 = 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 + # Generated by rust2rpm 28 %bcond check 1 @@ -73,3 +83,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Mar 02 2026 Andreas Schneider <asn> - 0.1.1-2 +- Remove usage of the unsend crate + +* Tue Feb 24 2026 Andreas Schneider <asn> - 0.1.1-1 +- Initial version 0.1.0 +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2442348 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-smol-macros
FEDORA-2026-66b69aecf7 (rust-smol-macros-0.1.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-66b69aecf7
FEDORA-2026-66b69aecf7 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-66b69aecf7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-66b69aecf7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.