Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0.3.1-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Rust netlink packet parsing and emitting crate for wireguard Fedora Account System Username: cathay4t
This is required for existing package nispor to upgrade to 2.0.2 through rust-nl-wireguard in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467908
> Problem: nothing provides requested (crate(pretty_assertions/default) >= 0.7.2 with crate(pretty_assertions/default) < 0.8.0~) Can this be patched (ideally, sending the patch upstream) to use pretty_assertions 1.x? I also notice that version 0.4.0 was released shortly after you submitted this request, but it’s justifiable to still package 0.3.1 if that’s what nl-wireguard needs.
See https://github.com/rust-netlink/netlink-packet-wireguard/pull/22.
Thanks for the review. Let me tag new release in upstream and update here this weekend.
New version of packet: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0.4.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Please review again. Thank you!
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10773448 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2467933-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10773448-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/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.
the build works well in my rawhide container. [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10791265 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2467933-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10791265-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/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.
This looks great except for a mismatch between the SPDX license expression and the actual license text, and a test failure on s390x. Details below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is the unmodified output of rust2rpm, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/netlink- packet-wireguard-0.4.1/CHANGELOG See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions. - The upstream license field in Cargo.toml is incorrect; the text of LICENSE-MIT doesn’t match the SPDX MIT license, but it precisely matches MITNFA. This is also an allowed license in Fedora, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/#_allowed_licenses, but you should patch the Cargo metadata and cite the PR I sent upstream to fix this, something like this in rust2rpm.toml: [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ """ Correct license SPDX metadata from MIT to MITNFA: https://github.com/rust-netlink/netlink-packet-wireguard/pull/25 """, ] - The package fails to build from source on s390x with the following error: test socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1 ... FAILED test test::test_query_reply ... FAILED test test::test_query_request ... FAILED test test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg ... FAILED failures: ---- socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1 stdout ---- thread 'socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1' (820) panicked at src/socket_addr.rs:121:9: assertion `left == right` failed left: [fe80::e458:8ead:89bb:8e25%50331648]:51820 right: [fe80::e458:8ead:89bb:8e25%3]:51820 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ---- test::test_query_reply stdout ---- thread 'test::test_query_reply' (823) panicked at src/test.rs:135:63: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: DecodeError { msg: "failed to parse wireguard netlink attributes caused by buffer has length: 296, but the NLA is 1536 bytes" } ---- test::test_query_request stdout ---- thread 'test::test_query_request' (824) panicked at src/test.rs:36:63: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: DecodeError { msg: "failed to parse wireguard netlink attributes caused by buffer has length: 8, but the NLA is 1792 bytes" } ---- test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg stdout ---- thread 'test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg' (825) panicked at src/test.rs:217:63: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: DecodeError { msg: "failed to parse wireguard netlink attributes caused by buffer has length: 192, but the NLA is 2048 bytes" } failures: socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1 test::test_query_reply test::test_query_request test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg test result: FAILED. 2 passed; 4 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148472714. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures As is typical for s390x-specific failures, this looks like an endianness bug, where some part of the code is assuming a little-endian architecture but s390x is big-endian. I haven’t investigated to see whether the error is in the crate’s library code, in the crate’s tests, or in one of the crate’s dependencies. Ideally, you could fix this bug and offer upstream a PR. You should at least report it upstream. If you can’t fix the bug, you can make the package ExcludeArch: s390x, but you must file a tracking bug blocking F-ExcludeArch-s390x, and everything that depends on this crate directly or indirectly will also have to be ExcludeArch: s390x. ===== 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* MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2467933-rust-netlink-packet- wireguard/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 [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- netlink-packet-wireguard-devel , rust-netlink-packet- wireguard+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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. FTBFS on s390x: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148472714 [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: [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-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0.4.1-1.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/tmpb9ugunwa')] 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: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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/netlink-packet-wireguard/0.4.1/download#/netlink-packet-wireguard-0.4.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71c05dd0eec2e1107b42eabbf200af2e59241e28ab2cc995885db52da05d3ad0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71c05dd0eec2e1107b42eabbf200af2e59241e28ab2cc995885db52da05d3ad0 Requires -------- rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bitflags/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(bitflags/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.98 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.14 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(netlink-packet-core/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(netlink-packet-core/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(netlink-packet-generic/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(netlink-packet-generic/default) < 0.5.0~) cargo rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(netlink-packet-wireguard) Provides -------- rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel: crate(netlink-packet-wireguard) purl(pkg:cargo/netlink-packet-wireguard.1) rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel: crate(netlink-packet-wireguard/default) rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2467933 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Haskell, Python, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
New version of packet: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0.4.2-1.fc43.src.rpm Please review again. Thank you!
I am also fixing the s390x problem. I might take a while for me to setup a qemu env for this.
(In reply to Gris Ge from comment #10) > New version of packet: > > Spec URL: > https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard. > spec > SRPM URL: > https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0. > 4.2-1.fc43.src.rpm > > Please review again. Thank you! Thanks! The only change in the spec file is the version number. The significant change upstream in https://github.com/rust-netlink/netlink-packet-wireguard/compare/v0.4.1...v0.4.2 is that they have done some combination of relicensing and clarification, and the license text and cargo metadata are now both MIT. Therefore, the license-related problem is resolved, no new issues are introduced, and the s390x failure is the only remaining obstacle to approval.
Created attachment 2153141 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10791265 to 10798943
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10798943 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2467933-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10798943-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/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.
New version of packet: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/new_rpms/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0.5.0-1.fc46.src.rpm I have fixed the s390x failure and license issue. The scratch build is done on all supported archs: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149661881 Please review again. Thank you!
[fedora-review-service-build]
All previously noted issues have been corrected, and I found no new issues. Thank you! The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm (after rpmautospec macro expansion), greatly simplifiying the review. Upstream has changed the license text from MITNFA to plain MIT, so the SPDX license identifier is now consistent with the license text. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/netlink- packet-wireguard-0.5.0/CHANGELOG 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* MIT License", "MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2467933-rust-netlink-packet- wireguard/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 [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- netlink-packet-wireguard-devel , rust-netlink-packet- wireguard+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. [-]: 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=149738882 [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-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel-0.5.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-0.5.0-1.fc46.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/tmpx7b0w9iu')] 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: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, 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/netlink-packet-wireguard/0.5.0/download#/netlink-packet-wireguard-0.5.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1586e7d665d51e10a6e67eaf433beeea784c8dcb96d89c7b9b99444de4221d16 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1586e7d665d51e10a6e67eaf433beeea784c8dcb96d89c7b9b99444de4221d16 Requires -------- rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bitflags/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(bitflags/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.98 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.14 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(netlink-packet-core/default) >= 0.9.0 with crate(netlink-packet-core/default) < 0.10.0~) (crate(netlink-packet-generic/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(netlink-packet-generic/default) < 0.6.0~) cargo rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(netlink-packet-wireguard) Provides -------- rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel: crate(netlink-packet-wireguard) purl(pkg:cargo/netlink-packet-wireguard.0) rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel: crate(netlink-packet-wireguard/default) rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2467933-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/srpm/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard.spec 2026-09-01 07:46:54.711765863 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2467933-rust-netlink-packet-wireguard/srpm-unpacked/rust-netlink-packet-wireguard.spec 2026-08-30 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## 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 @@ -67,3 +77,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Aug 30 2026 John Doe <packager> - 0.5.0-1 +- 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 2467933 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH === 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)