Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-nusb/rust-nusb.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-nusb/rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc45.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/nusb Description: Cross-platform low-level access to USB devices in pure Rust. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148780704
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10833518 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2512173-rust-nusb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10833518-rust-nusb/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.
LGTM === Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. ✅ package contains only permissible content ✅ package builds and installs without errors on rawhide ✅ test suite is run and all unit tests pass ✅ latest version of the crate is packaged (spec & crates.io: 0.2.7) ✅ license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora (spec & Cargo.toml: Apache-2.0 OR MIT) ✅ license file is included with %license in %files ✅ package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: nusb homepage: https://crates.io/crates/nusb backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-nusb - 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)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-nusb Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-6d69194421 (rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-6d69194421
FEDORA-2026-6d69194421 (rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-b032db47fe (rust-kisd-1.1.0-1.fc45 and rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b032db47fe
FEDORA-2026-d6e3a5a4f2 (rust-kisd-1.1.0-1.fc44 and rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d6e3a5a4f2
FEDORA-2026-563d3d99b5 (rust-kisd-1.1.0-1.fc43 and rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-563d3d99b5
FEDORA-2026-b032db47fe (rust-kisd-1.1.0-1.fc45 and rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-d6e3a5a4f2 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-d6e3a5a4f2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d6e3a5a4f2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-563d3d99b5 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-2026-563d3d99b5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-563d3d99b5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
This is a practise review done as part of getting sponsored into packagers, so don't take this seriously. LGTM 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/nusb-0.2.7/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". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/phoebe/Projects/public/rust- nusb/2512173-rust-nusb/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. [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 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- nusb-devel , rust-nusb+default-devel , rust-nusb+smol-devel , rust- nusb+tokio-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]: 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-nusb-devel-0.2.7-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-nusb+default-devel-0.2.7-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-nusb+smol-devel-0.2.7-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-nusb+tokio-devel-0.2.7-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.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/tmpcxjyc6vn')] checks: 32, packages: 5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 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: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/nusb/0.2.7/download#/nusb-0.2.7.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 18ef13beb3b3a8fc16fd7aea912ebd3d45dde00a9a5b968d0742297468065845 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 18ef13beb3b3a8fc16fd7aea912ebd3d45dde00a9a5b968d0742297468065845 Requires -------- rust-nusb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(futures-core/default) >= 0.3.29 with crate(futures-core/default) < 0.4.0~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/default) >= 0.11.0 with crate(linux-raw-sys/default) < 0.13.0~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/ioctl) >= 0.11.0 with crate(linux-raw-sys/ioctl) < 0.13.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.20 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(once_cell/default) >= 1.18.0 with crate(once_cell/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/default) >= 1.0.1 with crate(rustix/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/event) >= 1.0.1 with crate(rustix/event) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/fs) >= 1.0.1 with crate(rustix/fs) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/mm) >= 1.0.1 with crate(rustix/mm) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/net) >= 1.0.1 with crate(rustix/net) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rustix/time) >= 1.0.1 with crate(rustix/time) < 2.0.0~) (crate(slab/default) >= 0.4.9 with crate(slab/default) < 0.5.0~) cargo rust rust-nusb+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(nusb) rust-nusb+smol-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(blocking/default) >= 1.6.1 with crate(blocking/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(futures-io/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(futures-io/default) < 0.4.0~) cargo crate(nusb) rust-nusb+tokio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(tokio/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(tokio/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(tokio/rt) >= 1.0.0 with crate(tokio/rt) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(nusb) Provides -------- rust-nusb-devel: crate(nusb) purl(pkg:cargo/nusb.7) rust-nusb-devel rust-nusb+default-devel: crate(nusb/default) rust-nusb+default-devel rust-nusb+smol-devel: crate(nusb/smol) rust-nusb+smol-devel rust-nusb+tokio-devel: crate(nusb/tokio) rust-nusb+tokio-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2512173 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Python, Haskell, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
FEDORA-2026-563d3d99b5 (rust-kisd-1.1.0-1.fc43 and rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-d6e3a5a4f2 (rust-kisd-1.1.0-1.fc44 and rust-nusb-0.2.7-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.