Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10447327/rust-ping.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10447327/rust-ping-0.7.1-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: ping is a Rust library providing a simple and naive ping library implementation. This is my first package, and I am seeking for a sponsor. Fedora Account System Username: skyr0ver
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10452576 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476394-rust-ping/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10452576-rust-ping/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.
The COPR build has been garbage-collected, and the URLs now give 404 errors, so this can’t be reviewed. Consider uploading your submission somewhere more durable, like fedorapeople.org (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org).
> Consider uploading your submission somewhere more durable, like fedorapeople.org This is usually good, but not an option for people who are not yet in the "packager" group since they don't have access to fedorapeople.org.
Updated URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10610356/rust-ping.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10610356/rust-ping-0.7.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10652496 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476394-rust-ping/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10652496-rust-ping/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.
Updated URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10832721/rust-ping.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10832721/rust-ping-0.8.0-1.fc44.src.rpm A review would be much appreciated.
Updated URLs: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10999855/rust-ping.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10999855/rust-ping-0.8.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build] Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10999855/rust-ping.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/10999855/rust-ping-0.8.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. Compared to the output of rust2rpm without a rust2rpm.toml config file, - rpmautospec macros are expanded - A test is skipped, properly and with good justification: +# * bind_device requires root previledges, which cannot be satisfied +%cargo_test -- -- --exact --skip bind_device If you aren’t already handling this in rust2rpm.toml, you can do it like this: [tests] comments = [ "bind_device requires root privileges, which cannot be satisfied", ] skip-exact = true skip = [ "bind_device", ] Note that there’s a typo in the comment about the skipped tests: previledges should be privileges. Typos in comments are common and not serious, but it’s nice to fix them. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/ping-0.8.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions - Version 0.9 is available. Please update if you can. I am assuming that you are packaging this in order to support a larger project (since library-only Rust packages are really only useful as dependencies), so you might have to patch your intended reverse dependency for compatibility. Notes (no change required): =========================== - It’s a little confusing that the license is just MIT, but the README mentions that code under (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) is used from tokio-ping, and both tokio-ping license files are present. Downstream, under the “just list all the licenses and don’t do any algebraic simplifications” philosophy, we would normally write the license expression as “MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)”. It seems upstream is implying the code from tokio-ping is used under the MIT license option and freely intermingled with MIT-only code. I guess the upstream license of MIT is OK under this interpretation. It might merit some kind of a comment explaining the situation. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2476394-rust- ping/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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- ping-devel , rust-ping+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [!]: Latest version is packaged. Version 0.9 is available. [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=150522675 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: The %define macros are only from rpmautospec macro expansions, and this advice is dubious anyway, https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1449/. [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. ===== 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-ping-devel-0.8.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-ping+default-devel-0.8.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-ping-0.8.0-1.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/tmp4rslogoi')] 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: 2.10.0 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/ping/0.8.0/download#/ping-0.8.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fb19e959ef149db2aaedfb5317bd0770b06d2ff811145ade123a456f883e2e04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb19e959ef149db2aaedfb5317bd0770b06d2ff811145ade123a456f883e2e04 Requires -------- rust-ping-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rand/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(rand/default) < 0.10.0~) (crate(socket2/all) >= 0.6.0 with crate(socket2/all) < 0.7.0~) (crate(socket2/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(socket2/default) < 0.7.0~) (crate(thiserror/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(thiserror/default) < 2.2.0~) cargo rust-ping+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ping) Provides -------- rust-ping-devel: crate(ping) purl(pkg:cargo/ping.0) rust-ping-devel rust-ping+default-devel: crate(ping/default) rust-ping+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2476394 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, fonts, R, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The package has been bumped to 0.9.0, with the typo in comments fixed. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/11024232/rust-ping.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/skyr0ver/brush/srpm-builds/11024232/rust-ping-0.9.0-1.fc44.src.rpm As for the licensing issue, I went through upstream's codebase and found no modification notices as required by Apache-2.0. So, if I understand correctly, legally the code from tokio-ping can only be used under the MIT license. I've opened an issue (https://github.com/aisk/rust-ping/issues/61) to see if the author has a solution.