Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sundaram123krishnan/test-rust-sluice-0.6.0/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10895427-rust-sluice/rust-sluice.spec SRPM URL: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/sundaram123krishnan/test-rust-sluice-0.6.0/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/r/rust-sluice-0.6.0-1.fc46.src.rpm Description: Efficient ring buffer for byte buffers, FIFO queues, and SPSC channels. Fedora Account System Username:sundaram123krishnan
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10897356 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2521681-rust-sluice/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10897356-rust-sluice/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sluice Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #1) > Copr build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10897356 > (succeeded) > > Review template: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- > review-2521681-rust-sluice/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10897356-rust-sluice/fedora- > review/review.txt > > Found issues: > > - A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sluice > Read more: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ > #_conflicting_package_names > > 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. rust-sluice is not actively maintained by anyone right now and is marked orphan.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10898267 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2521681-rust-sluice/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10898267-rust-sluice/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sluice Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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 found no defects, and the package is APPROVED. I did have some suggestions regarding the metadata patch to drop criterion. What you have done is not wrong, but the suggestions should ease future maintenance. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate (It was already there, https://release-monitoring.org/project/76404/, and I just updated the version scheme and filter.) - 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) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated This was previously packaged, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sluice; I note that this is a review for unretirement. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming and also discussion of the very new, not-yet-documented “self-service” unretirement capability in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13498. The spec file is generated with rust2rpm. There is a metadata patch that was manually added; it is acceptable, but I have suggestions. Issues: ======= - The metadata patch to drop criterion is acceptable, necessary, and well-documented, but it looks like you added it manually. It would be better to do this with “rust2rpm -p” instead. First, while it doesn’t matter in this case, in general patching Cargo.toml may affect the generated spec file, so doing it via “rust2rpm -p” is a good rule. Second, you can maintain the patch comment in rust2rpm.toml, like: [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ "Drop unnecessary benchmark-only dev-dependency on criterion", ] or if you want your full comment *and* want the text to be reflowed by rust2rpm: [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ """\ Drop the criterion-only bench target: criterion pulls in a large plotting \ stack (plotters, criterion-plot, tinytemplate, ...), not required to test \ rest tests stays enabled\ """, ] There’s nothing wrong with your long comment, but it would be fine to have a shorter one since patching out criterion is extremely common. Once you’ve used “rust2rpm -p”, you can typically reapply the same patch when re-generating the spec file (e.g. for an upstream update) using “rust2rpm -r”. See the man pages for rust2rpm and rust2rpm.toml for details. The last thing I have to say about this patch is that you don’t actually have to patch out the benchmark, only the criterion dependency. It doesn’t hurt, though. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/sluice-0.6.0/CHANGELOG.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sluice See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names OK: this is a review for unretirement ===== 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* MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2521681-rust- sluice/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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- sluice-devel , rust-sluice+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149605293 [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-sluice-devel-0.6.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-sluice+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-sluice-0.6.0-1.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/tmp9nbkyirt')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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/sluice/0.6.0/download#/sluice-0.6.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 160b744a45e8261307bcfe03c98e2f8274502207d534c9a64b675c4db1b6bd58 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 160b744a45e8261307bcfe03c98e2f8274502207d534c9a64b675c4db1b6bd58 Requires -------- rust-sluice-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(async-channel/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(async-channel/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(futures-core/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(futures-core/default) < 0.4.0~) (crate(futures-io/default) >= 0.3.0 with crate(futures-io/default) < 0.4.0~) cargo rust rust-sluice+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(sluice) Provides -------- rust-sluice-devel: crate(sluice) purl(pkg:cargo/sluice.0) rust-sluice-devel rust-sluice+default-devel: crate(sluice/default) rust-sluice+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2521681 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, R, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review I have addressed the criterion patch and re-generated the spec using the rust2rpm -p flag.