Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://zbyszek.fedorapeople.org/rust-liblzma-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://zbyszek.fedorapeople.org/rust-liblzma-sys-0.4.7-1.fc45.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/liblzma-sys Description: Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding. High level Rust bindings are available in the `liblzma` crate. Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147191631
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10660841 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494237-rust-liblzma-sys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10660841-rust-liblzma-sys/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
i686 doesn't build, dropped. Spec URL: https://zbyszek.fedorapeople.org/rust-liblzma-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://zbyszek.fedorapeople.org/rust-liblzma-sys-0.4.7-2.fc45.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147191969
Created attachment 2147075 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10660841 to 10660882
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10660882 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494237-rust-liblzma-sys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10660882-rust-liblzma-sys/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
I will look into it, but please fix first the issues found in comment #5 :-)
Comment #5 said: > - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is a rust package. It doesn't need any of those. > rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys.src: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Raw bindings to liblzma which contains an implementation of LZMA and xz stream encoding/decoding Shortened to "Raw binding for liblzma". > rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys.src: E: spelling-error ('xz', 'Summary(en_US) xz -> xx, x, z') > rust-liblzma-sys.src: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') :) > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: W: potential-bashisms /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/build-aux/license-check.sh > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/build-aux/license-check.sh 644 /bin/sh > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/build-aux/manconv.sh 644 /bin/sh > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/build-aux/version.sh 644 /bin/sh > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/debug/translation.bash 644 /bin/bash > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/src/liblzma/validate_map.sh 644 /bin/sh > rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/cargo/registry/liblzma-sys-0.4.7/xz/windows/build.bash 644 /bin/bash > 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 34 errors, 1 warnings, 55 filtered, 34 badness; has taken 1.3 s Those are private to the crate, so no need to modify them. I updated the srpm and spec in place.
You shouldn't update them in place. Normally you do the changes and commit them and in the commit message which gets the changelog you descibe what you fixed. So the reviewer can look at the changelog. When you import to fedora the changelog with %autochangelog is gone anyway. Then you create a new comment with the SPEC and SPRM url so the tools in place can be used like fedora-review :-) Please update accordingly. Thanks :-)
I already described what I changed in the comment above. I don't think there is any point in repeating this in a place which is hard to access. Anyway, the change was completely trivial so it is not something that belongs in %changelog.
The rust-liblzma-sys-devel package contains a copy of the xz source code. I think you should remove that in the prep section. Also it should link against the system liblzma only! rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel should probably be dropped.
Thanks for noticing this. I changed the spec file to 'rm -r xz' in prep. I want to keep the ability to do static builds of the crate. In particular, I want to add a static variant of dotslash later on, for easy use in container builds and such. I tested it with the -static crate, and it seems to work. I also noticed that in the normal build of dotslash, a normal dynamic build should be done, so I changed dotslash to do that. I also put up the repo, in case you want to look at the changes. Repo: https://github.com/keszybz/rust-liblzma-sys Spec URL: https://zbyszek.fedorapeople.org/rust-liblzma-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://zbyszek.fedorapeople.org/rust-liblzma-sys-0.4.7-3.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2147999 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10660882 to 10695276
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10695276 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494237-rust-liblzma-sys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10695276-rust-liblzma-sys/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Did you modify this manually in the spec file or create a rust2rpm.toml?
Manually. I'll retrofit the changes to rust2rpm.toml later when doing an upgrade. I find it easier to work on the spec file directly when developing.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/2494237-rust- liblzma-sys/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 [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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- liblzma-sys-devel , rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel , rust-liblzma- sys+bindgen-devel , rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel , rust-liblzma- sys+parallel-devel , rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel , rust-liblzma- sys+thin-lto-devel , rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel , rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: [x]: 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-liblzma-sys-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel-0.4.7-3.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-liblzma-sys-0.4.7-3.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/tmphfwphhiq')] checks: 32, packages: 10 rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys.src: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> CZ, xx, X') 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 0 warnings, 55 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 9 rust-liblzma-sys-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('xz', '%description -l en_US xz -> xx, x, z') 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 0 warnings, 51 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/liblzma-sys/0.4.7/download#/liblzma-sys-0.4.7.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a046c7f353ba30f810545151e04f63545833803f5b86ee3ddf1517247fe560a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a046c7f353ba30f810545151e04f63545833803f5b86ee3ddf1517247fe560a5 Requires -------- rust-liblzma-sys-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(cc/default) >= 1.0.49 with crate(cc/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(cc/parallel) >= 1.0.49 with crate(cc/parallel) < 2.0.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.67 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(pkg-config/default) >= 0.3.18 with crate(pkg-config/default) < 0.4.0~) cargo rust rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) crate(liblzma-sys/bindgen) rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) xz-static rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(liblzma-sys) crate(liblzma-sys/bindgen) crate(liblzma-sys/static) Provides -------- rust-liblzma-sys-devel: crate(liblzma-sys) purl(pkg:cargo/liblzma-sys.7) rust-liblzma-sys-devel rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/default) rust-liblzma-sys+default-devel rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/bindgen) rust-liblzma-sys+bindgen-devel rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/fat-lto) rust-liblzma-sys+fat-lto-devel rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/parallel) rust-liblzma-sys+parallel-devel rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/static) rust-liblzma-sys+static-devel rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/thin-lto) rust-liblzma-sys+thin-lto-devel rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/uncheck_liblzma_version) rust-liblzma-sys+uncheck_liblzma_version-devel rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel: crate(liblzma-sys/wasm) rust-liblzma-sys+wasm-devel
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-liblzma-sys Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
Thanks for the review!
FWIW the way you excluded i686 (why?) will cause followon problems since this doesn't work as you want it to for noarch packages like Rust crates. Use the "(un)supported-arches" settings in rust2rpm.toml instead. Fixing the i686 build would be preferable, though, since we need this package to work everywhere for some other pending Rust crate updates too (rust-async-compression -> liblzma -> liblzma-sys).