Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Created attachment 2135549 [details] Configuration file for rust2rpm Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-validator.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-validator-0.20.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Common validation functions (email, url, length, ...) and trait - to be used with `validator_derive`. Fedora Account System Username: music
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10280936 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453355-rust-validator/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10280936-rust-validator/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/10280935 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453355-rust-validator/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10280935-rust-validator/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.
All lgtm. - Non-blocker, but this one pulls in 2 compat crates, just an fyi --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - (rust2rpm issue) Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/validator_derive-0.20.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2453354-rust-validator_derive/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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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- validator_derive-devel , rust-validator_derive+default-devel [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. (no tests available) [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-validator_derive-devel-0.20.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-validator_derive+default-devel-0.20.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-validator_derive-0.20.0-1.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/tmpsjm2g_qr')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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/validator_derive/0.20.0/download#/validator_derive-0.20.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7df16e474ef958526d1205f6dda359fdfab79d9aa6d54bafcb92dcd07673dca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7df16e474ef958526d1205f6dda359fdfab79d9aa6d54bafcb92dcd07673dca https://github.com/Keats/validator/raw/refs/tags/v0.20.0/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f91b318232b91ccedaadc2b3fba4c3f3d2cc5300a685a97f24b167d11df2fe1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f91b318232b91ccedaadc2b3fba4c3f3d2cc5300a685a97f24b167d11df2fe1 Requires -------- rust-validator_derive-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(darling/default) >= 0.20.0 with crate(darling/default) < 0.21.0~) (crate(darling/suggestions) >= 0.20.0 with crate(darling/suggestions) < 0.21.0~) (crate(once_cell/default) >= 1.18.0 with crate(once_cell/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(proc-macro-error2/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(proc-macro-error2/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(proc-macro2/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(proc-macro2/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(quote/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(quote/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(syn/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(syn/default) < 3.0.0~) cargo rust rust-validator_derive+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(validator_derive) Provides -------- rust-validator_derive-devel: crate(validator_derive) rust-validator_derive-devel rust-validator_derive+default-devel: crate(validator_derive/default) rust-validator_derive+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2453354 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Java, Perl, R, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I have mixed up the reviews, the correct review text for this one is in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2453354#c3
Oops, sorry I did not catch this earlier, but you miss a hide for ``` %{name}+derive_nightly_features-devel ```
Thank you for the review! It looks like I have left in the derive_nightly_features feature. I’ll need to hide this, for the same reasons I hid the nightly_features feature in rust-validator_derive, upon which it depends. I’m surprised I didn’t catch that in local installablility testing. I’ll adjust it on import. https://release-monitoring.org/project/389603/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-validator
I also uploaded the wrong rust2rpm.toml file here. It should look like (after hiding the derive_nightly_features feature): [package.license-files] include = ["LICENSE"] [[package.extra-sources]] number = 10 file = "https://github.com/Keats/validator/raw/refs/tags/v0.20.0/LICENSE" comments = [ "Include license files in published crates", "https://github.com/Keats/validator/pull/387", ] [scripts.prep] pre = [ "cp -p '%{SOURCE10}' ." ] [features] hide = [ # Software in Fedora should use stable Rust features. "derive_nightly_features", # The card-validate crate is not packaged. "card", "card-validate", ]
FEDORA-2026-5cb1f76549 (rust-validator-0.20.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-5cb1f76549
FEDORA-2026-5cb1f76549 (rust-validator-0.20.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.