Bug 2444371 - Review Request: rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor - Event monitor for crypto-auditing project
Summary: Review Request: rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor - Event monitor for crypto...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Alexander Sosedkin
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/crypto-audit...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-03-04 12:21 UTC by Daiki Ueno
Modified: 2026-03-05 01:16 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-03-05 01:16:15 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
asosedki: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-03-04 12:21:39 UTC
The ticket summary is not in the correct format.
Expected:

    Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>

Found:

    rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor - Event monitor for crypto-auditing project

As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to
be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a
build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].


---
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.

Comment 2 Daiki Ueno 2026-03-04 12:24:42 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2026-03-04 12:27:03 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10190140
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2444371-rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10190140-rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor/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.

Comment 4 Alexander Sosedkin 2026-03-04 14:27:00 UTC
> No match for argument: crate(crypto-auditing/default) = 0.3.0

rust-crypto-auditing-devel-0.3.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm is a bit too freshly built and that could be a hindrance for the review.
One (possibly overkill) way to make it available to mock is:

mkdir -p local-repo
pushd local-repo
wget https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/rust-crypto-auditing/0.3.0/1.fc45/noarch/rust-crypto-auditing+default-devel-0.3.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
wget https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/rust-crypto-auditing/0.3.0/1.fc45/noarch/rust-crypto-auditing-devel-0.3.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
createrepo_c .
sudo tee /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-localrepo.cfg <<EOF
config_opts['target_arch'] = 'x86_64'
config_opts['legal_host_arches'] = ('x86_64',)
include('templates/fedora-rawhide.tpl')
config_opts['plugin_conf']['bind_mount_enable'] = True
config_opts['plugin_conf']['bind_mount_opts']['dirs'].append(('$(pwd)', '$(pwd)'))
config_opts['dnf.conf'] += """
[local-crau]
name=local-crau
baseurl=file://$(pwd)
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0
cost=1
"""
EOF
popd

fedora-review -b 2444371 --mock-config=fedora-rawhide-x86_64-localrepo

Comment 5 Alexander Sosedkin 2026-03-04 15:14:36 UTC
Freeform notes filed separately, so they don't drown in the verbose template:

manpages: filed https://github.com/latchset/crypto-auditing/issues/255
unmaintained deps: upstream is aware of serde_cbor deprecation: https://github.com/latchset/crypto-auditing/issues/251
owned by other pkgs: co-owns %{_sysconfdir}/crypto-auditing/, but with other leaf crypto-auditing packages, so I guess that's OK
license: upstream repo contains files under other licenses, but the crate does not have them
functionality: smoke-tested tested with rawhide -agent and gnutls
builds on all arches: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143016256

Comment 6 Alexander Sosedkin 2026-03-04 15:26:41 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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.
     * Upstream README also claims
       * agent/src/bpf/audit.bpf.c: GPL-2.0-or-later
       * scripts/flamegraph.py: GPL-2.0-only
       but this SRPM does not distribute them.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/crypto-auditing(crypto-
     auditing-agent, crypto-auditing-client, crypto-auditing-event-broker)
[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.
     * It's autogenerated with a stub, but I guess it'll work fine
       with an actual git repo.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
     * rpmlint passes, nothing obviously wrong
[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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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 448 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[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.
     * I don't see upstream publishing anything, just tags and crates.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
     * I guess? That'd be monitor.conf, and there's -p.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     * that seems to be expected for autospec
[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: crypto-auditing-event-monitor-0.3.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor-0.3.0-1.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/tmp0dg92h1v')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

crypto-auditing-event-monitor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary crau-monitor
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 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: 1

crypto-auditing-event-monitor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary crau-monitor
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/crypto-auditing-event-monitor/0.3.0/download#/crypto-auditing-event-monitor-0.3.0.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 607fbadac3e7132cd3a3e4126d0c59e495daae076fcc8a2db8d6941d0947ce6b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 607fbadac3e7132cd3a3e4126d0c59e495daae076fcc8a2db8d6941d0947ce6b


Requires
--------
crypto-auditing-event-monitor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(crypto-auditing-event-monitor)
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(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)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
crypto-auditing-event-monitor:
    config(crypto-auditing-event-monitor)
    crypto-auditing-event-monitor
    crypto-auditing-event-monitor(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /tmp/crau-monitor/2444371-rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor/srpm/rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor.spec	2026-03-04 15:23:21.943860513 +0100
+++ /tmp/crau-monitor/2444371-rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor/srpm-unpacked/rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor.spec	2026-03-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -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
@@ -73,3 +83,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Mar 04 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.3.0-1
+- 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 2444371 --mock-config=fedora-rawhide-x86_64-localrepo
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, Python, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 7 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-03-04 23:00:38 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-crypto-auditing-event-monitor

Comment 8 Daiki Ueno 2026-03-05 01:16:15 UTC
Thanks for the review (and filing the follow-up tasks in upstream), the package has been built:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9f300a0e56


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.