Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-emojis.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-emojis-0.8.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/emojis Description: ✨ Lookup emoji in *O(1)* time, access metadata and GitHub shortcodes, iterate over all emoji, and more!. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
*** Bug 2249882 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10320105 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2457927-rust-emojis/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10320105-rust-emojis/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.
Overall LGTM, seems like straight-forward rust2rpm - Please update to `0.8.1` which already added the license files - (non-blocker) Can you suggest upstream to bump the `rust-toml` to 1.x? That is the only compat package we are picking up - This one is using generated rust files, but it is unavoidable
Oh nice, my PR got merged! I'll check if it builds against toml 1.x, and file an issue; and if it's not, file an issue, then update
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-emojis.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc45.src.rpm rust2rpm.toml: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-emojis-rust2rpm.toml
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10326545 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2457927-rust-emojis/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10326545-rust-emojis/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.
Cool, all lgtm now --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - (known issue, nothing to be done here) Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/emojis-0.8.0/LICENSE-APACHE 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2457927-rust- emojis/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 [-]: 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: 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]: 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- emojis-devel , rust-emojis+default-devel , rust-emojis+serde-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-emojis-devel-0.8.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-emojis+default-devel-0.8.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-emojis+serde-devel-0.8.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-emojis-0.8.0-1.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/tmpk1g5b9ad')] checks: 32, packages: 4 rust-emojis+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis+serde-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis+serde-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis.src: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis.src: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 1.1 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: 3 rust-emojis+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis+serde-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', 'Summary(en_US) shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') rust-emojis+serde-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shortcodes', '%description -l en_US shortcodes -> short codes, short-codes, shortcakes') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 15 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/emojis/0.8.0/download#/emojis-0.8.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50c1c1870b766fc398e5f0526498d09c94b6de15be5fd769a28bbc804fb1b05d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50c1c1870b766fc398e5f0526498d09c94b6de15be5fd769a28bbc804fb1b05d https://raw.githubusercontent.com/michel-slm/rust-emojis/refs/heads/add-unicode-license/LICENSE-UNICODE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7db81051789b729fea528a63ec4c938fdcb93d9d61d97dc8cc2e9df6d47f2a1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7db81051789b729fea528a63ec4c938fdcb93d9d61d97dc8cc2e9df6d47f2a1 Requires -------- rust-emojis-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(phf) >= 0.13.1 with crate(phf) < 0.14.0~) cargo rust rust-emojis+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(emojis) rust-emojis+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde) >= 1.0.145 with crate(serde) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.145 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(emojis) Provides -------- rust-emojis-devel: crate(emojis) rust-emojis-devel rust-emojis+default-devel: crate(emojis/default) rust-emojis+default-devel rust-emojis+serde-devel: crate(emojis/serde) rust-emojis+serde-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2457927-rust-emojis/srpm/rust-emojis.spec 2026-04-14 15:36:52.143218848 +0200 +++ /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2457927-rust-emojis/srpm-unpacked/rust-emojis.spec 2026-04-13 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -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 @@ -89,3 +99,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Apr 13 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.8.0-1 +- 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 2457927 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Java, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Perl, C/C++, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-emojis
FEDORA-2026-874e78525e (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-874e78525e
FEDORA-2026-874e78525e (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a00896455c (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.el10_3) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.3. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a00896455c
FEDORA-2026-4c9ffae4d8 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4c9ffae4d8
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-aa8f5168ed (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-aa8f5168ed
FEDORA-2026-c533432d05 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c533432d05
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a2e1f33447 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a2e1f33447
FEDORA-2026-c533432d05 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 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-c533432d05 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c533432d05 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a2e1f33447 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a2e1f33447 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-aa8f5168ed has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-aa8f5168ed See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-4c9ffae4d8 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-2026-4c9ffae4d8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4c9ffae4d8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a00896455c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a00896455c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-c12ffd5750 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 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-c12ffd5750 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c12ffd5750 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a00896455c (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.el10_3) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-aa8f5168ed (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-c12ffd5750 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-4c9ffae4d8 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-a2e1f33447 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-c533432d05 (rust-emojis-0.8.1-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.