Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-amq-protocol-uri.spec SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-amq-protocol-uri-10.6.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: AMQP URI manipulation Fedora Account System Username: jcline This is part of my ongoing effort to package lapin so I can package siguldry-fedora-autosign, see also: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481649 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2481743
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10669329 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496125-rust-amq-protocol-uri/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10669329-rust-amq-protocol-uri/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.
Hi @jeremy I have found few discrepancies while reviewing the package. 1. Duplicate files in %files devel warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/amq-protocol-uri-10.6.2/LICENSE warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/amq-protocol-uri-10.6.2/README.md 2. Missing dependency rust-amq-protocol-types not in fedora Installing the built rpm fails with below ``` [azureuser@fedora-44-package-reviews ~]$ sudo dnf install /home/azureuser/2496125-rust-amq-protocol-uri/results/rust-amq-protocol-uri-devel-10.6.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Failed to resolve the transaction: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides crate(amq-protocol-types/default) = 10.6.2 needed by rust-amq-protocol-uri-devel-10.6.2-1.fc45.noarch from @commandline You can try to add to command line: --skip-broken to skip uninstallable packages ``` Let me know if the rust-amq-protocol-types is in review ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/amq-protocol- uri-10.6.2/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", "BSD 2-Clause License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/azureuser/2496125-rust-amq-protocol-uri/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. [ ]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- amq-protocol-uri-devel , rust-amq-protocol-uri+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. [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-amq-protocol-uri-devel-10.6.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-amq-protocol-uri+default-devel-10.6.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-amq-protocol-uri-10.6.2-1.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/tmp5he15lsy')] 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/amq-protocol-uri/10.6.2/download#/amq-protocol-uri-10.6.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64fd5ca63f1b8cba2309aaec8595483c36f3a671225d5ab9fe8265adb9213514 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64fd5ca63f1b8cba2309aaec8595483c36f3a671225d5ab9fe8265adb9213514 Requires -------- rust-amq-protocol-uri-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(percent-encoding/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(percent-encoding/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(url/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(url/default) < 3.0.0~) cargo crate(amq-protocol-types/default) rust rust-amq-protocol-uri+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(amq-protocol-uri) Provides -------- rust-amq-protocol-uri-devel: crate(amq-protocol-uri) purl(pkg:cargo/amq-protocol-uri.2) rust-amq-protocol-uri-devel rust-amq-protocol-uri+default-devel: crate(amq-protocol-uri/default) rust-amq-protocol-uri+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/azureuser/2496125-rust-amq-protocol-uri/srpm/rust-amq-protocol-uri.spec 2026-07-22 17:55:59.460181320 +0000 +++ /home/azureuser/2496125-rust-amq-protocol-uri/srpm-unpacked/rust-amq-protocol-uri.spec 2026-07-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -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 @@ -66,3 +76,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jul 01 2026 John Doe <packager> - 10.6.2-1 +- 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 2496125 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Python, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Hi Jeremy After upgrading to fedora 45 and installing the dependencies, the package installs successfully. All checks pass. Marking the review as approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-amq-protocol-uri Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`