Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-rapidhash.spec SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-rapidhash-4.5.1-1.fc46.src.rpm Description: Extremely fast, high quality, platform-independent hashing algorithm. Fedora Account System Username: jcline
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10861765 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2514829-rust-rapidhash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10861765-rust-rapidhash/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.
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-rapidhash.spec SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-rapidhash-4.5.1-1.fc46.src.rpm Updated to hide the binary that I don't think will be used by anyone. I've got the following snippet in the rust2rpm.toml I'm going to check into the dist-git repo: [package] # I'm hesitant to ship it since I don't think it'll have users since a super-fast hashing algorithm # is somewhat defeated by the CLI and it's not a cryptographic hash. If someone wants it we can turn it on. cargo-install-bin = false
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10866049 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2514829-rust-rapidhash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10866049-rust-rapidhash/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 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 ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/rust-rapidhash/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 25613 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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 rapidhash , rust-rapidhash-devel , rust-rapidhash+default-devel , rust-rapidhash+getrandom_03-devel , rust-rapidhash+getrandom_04-devel , rust-rapidhash+nightly-devel , rust-rapidhash+rand-devel , rust- rapidhash+rng-devel , rust-rapidhash+std-devel , rust- rapidhash+unsafe-devel [x]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rapidhash-4.5.1-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm rust-rapidhash-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+default-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+getrandom_03-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+getrandom_04-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+nightly-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+rand-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+rng-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+std-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash+unsafe-devel-4.5.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-rapidhash-4.5.1-1.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/tmpruxfz135')] checks: 32, packages: 11 rapidhash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rapidhash rapidhash.x86_64: W: invalid-license # FIXME 11 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 58 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rapidhash". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+getrandom_04-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+unsafe-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+rng-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+std-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+default-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+rand-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+getrandom_03-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-rapidhash+nightly-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 10 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rapidhash/4.5.1/download#/rapidhash-4.5.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5da7e78a036ce858e8d55b7e7dc8ba3a88b78350fd2155d3591bbd966b58589e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5da7e78a036ce858e8d55b7e7dc8ba3a88b78350fd2155d3591bbd966b58589e Requires -------- rapidhash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-rapidhash-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rustversion/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(rustversion/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust rust-rapidhash+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rapidhash) crate(rapidhash/std) rust-rapidhash+getrandom_03-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(getrandom) >= 0.3.0 with crate(getrandom) < 0.4.0~) cargo crate(rapidhash) rust-rapidhash+getrandom_04-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(getrandom) >= 0.4.0 with crate(getrandom) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rapidhash) rust-rapidhash+nightly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rapidhash) rust-rapidhash+rand-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rapidhash) crate(rapidhash/getrandom_03) crate(rapidhash/std) rust-rapidhash+rng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rand_core) >= 0.9.0 with crate(rand_core) < 0.10.0~) cargo crate(rapidhash) rust-rapidhash+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rapidhash) rust-rapidhash+unsafe-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rapidhash) Provides -------- rapidhash: rapidhash rapidhash(x86-64) rust-rapidhash-devel: crate(rapidhash) purl(pkg:cargo/rapidhash.1) rust-rapidhash-devel rust-rapidhash+default-devel: crate(rapidhash/default) rust-rapidhash+default-devel rust-rapidhash+getrandom_03-devel: crate(rapidhash/getrandom_03) rust-rapidhash+getrandom_03-devel rust-rapidhash+getrandom_04-devel: crate(rapidhash/getrandom_04) rust-rapidhash+getrandom_04-devel rust-rapidhash+nightly-devel: crate(rapidhash/nightly) rust-rapidhash+nightly-devel rust-rapidhash+rand-devel: crate(rapidhash/rand) rust-rapidhash+rand-devel rust-rapidhash+rng-devel: crate(rapidhash/rng) rust-rapidhash+rng-devel rust-rapidhash+std-devel: crate(rapidhash/std) rust-rapidhash+std-devel rust-rapidhash+unsafe-devel: crate(rapidhash/unsafe) rust-rapidhash+unsafe-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-rapidhash --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, R, PHP, Haskell, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Manual review is completed. Packed builds successfully in mock (fedora-rawhide-x86_64) and installs successfully. Spec file follows Fedora Rust packaging guidelines. Marking it as approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rapidhash Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`