Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sqz.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-sqz-0.1.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/sqz Description: A high-Level library for Sequoia PGP. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=151028492 rust2rpm.toml file used: ``` [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ "swap sequoia-openpgp backend for tests to crypto-openssl" ] license-files = ["LICENSE.txt"] [[package.extra-sources]] number = 2 file = "https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-sq/-/raw/sqz/v0.1.0/LICENSE.txt" comments = ["https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-sq/-/merge_requests/743"] [features] hide = [ # features "allow-experimental-crypto", "allow-variable-time-crypto", "crypto-botan", "crypto-botan2", "crypto-cng", "crypto-rust", ] [scripts] prep.post = ["cp -pav %{SOURCE2} ."] ``` There are some additional changes on top to build + run tests for both nettle + openssl crypto backends.
I will take this one.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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". 90 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jjelen/2547954-rust- sqz/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: 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]: 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: [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 rust- sqz-devel , rust-sqz+default-devel , rust-sqz+clap-devel , rust- sqz+crypto-nettle-devel , rust-sqz+crypto-openssl-devel , rust- sqz+net-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. Filled fedora-review ticket: -> https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/FedoraReview/issues/565 [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. rust-sqz-devel.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/cargo/registry/sqz-0.1.0/LICENSE.txt -- I do not think this is a big issue as the address is really part of the license string
Thank you for the review! As for the FSF thing - yeah, the LGPL-2.0 license text is taken verbatim from the FSF website, so if that address no longer accurate, they should fix it there :)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sqz Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-7022b8fde1 (rust-sequoia-sq-1.5.0-1.fc46 and rust-sqz-0.1.0-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-7022b8fde1
FEDORA-2026-7022b8fde1 (rust-sequoia-sq-1.5.0-1.fc46 and rust-sqz-0.1.0-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.