https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440297
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #14 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Thank you for bringing this useful set of tools to Fedora! The package is APPROVED, provided that you address the build failure on i686 when you import it; see the recommendation below. Feel free to contact me or join the “Fedora Rust” room on Matrix (https://chat.fedoraproject.org/#/room/#rust:fedoraproject.org) if you have questions in the future. === 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 - 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 ===== Issues ===== - The package fails to build on i686: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2417/142602417/build.log There are several errors of the form: error[E0308]: mismatched types --> src/lib.rs:133:6 | 133 | (libc::AT_BASE, "AT_BASE"), | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u64`, found `u32` For Rust crate libraries, we find that it’s helpful if we can avoid ExcludeArch when possible because it propagates through (large, ever-changing) dependency chains. For an application package like this, it’s reasonable (and even mildly desirable) to simply not build an i686 package: # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} You’re welcome to fix the problem upstream if you *want* to support 32-bit platforms, but there’s no need to do it for Fedora’s sake. ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ==== - You might consider adding a spec-file comment above the weak dependencies on glib-common, procps-ng, and python3-linux-procfs explaining their purpose. It’s otherwise pretty hard for a reader of the spec file to discern why they are there and (in the future) whether they are still needed. - If you aren’t already using rust2rpm.toml to represent all or nearly all of your spec-file customization, consider it. Let me know if there’s something you can’t figure out how to make it handle. It can’t replace all hand-editing, but I think it should be able to deal with everything but the license expression in your spec file. - Since the binary names are short and generic, there is a relatively high risk of conflict as you implement more tools. You can check new tools something like this: * sudo dnf install fedora-repos-rawhide * repoquery --repo=rawhide --whatprovides '*bin/pfoo' * If this gives a result, check the actual path (repoquery --repo=rawhide -l $other_packag_ename | grep pfoo) to determine if a bona fide conflict exists. Your use of short and generic names is well-justified in context, considering you are reproducing a historical set of tools. ===== 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", "Apache License 2.0". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260221/2440297-rust- ptools/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. $ for bin in p{args,auxv,cred,env,files,run,sig,stop,tree} > do > printf '==> %s\n' "${bin}" > repoquery --repo=rawhide --whatprovides "*bin/${bin}" 2>/dev/null > done --> pargs --> pauxv --> pcred --> penv --> pfiles --> prun prrte-0:3.0.6-9.fc44.x86_64 --> psig --> pstop --> ptree $ repoquery --repo=rawhide -l prrte 2>/dev/null | grep prun /usr/lib64/openmpi/bin/prun /usr/lib64/openmpi/share/man/man1/prun.1 This was a close one! But the prrte spec file has already moved its executables into %{_ilibdir}/openmpi/bin/ to avoid a conflict with putty, which also provides a “pterm” executable. See: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/prrte/c/f56d6b82348e122458763e6eb4f68ad4b8821235?branch=rawhide So this is OK, and doesn’t constitute a 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. Weak dependencies should preferably be explained in a spec-file comment. [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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Package requires ExcludeArch: %{ix86} [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8858 bytes in 2 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]: Package functions as described. Tests pass. Manual “smoke tests” seem OK: <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# pargs $PPID 1: (sd-stubinit) argv[0]: (sd-stubinit) <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# pauxv $PPID 1: (sd-stubinit) AT_SYSINFO_EHDR 0x00007ff6cb881000 […] AT_RSEQ_ALIGN 0x0000000000000020 <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# pcred $PPID 1: e/r/suid=0(root) e/r/sgid=0(root) <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# penv $PPID 1: (sd-stubinit) envp[0]: container=systemd-nspawn envp[1]: container_uuid=48f30bdca3aa49b3890b724bf0a63aad <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# pfiles $PPID 1: (sd-stubinit) Current soft rlimit: 1024 file descriptors Current hard rlimit: 524288 file descriptors Current umask: 022 0: S_IFCHR mode:0600 dev:0,163 ino:3 uid:0 gid:5 rdev:136,0 O_RDWR /dev/pts/0 offset: 0 1: S_IFCHR mode:0600 dev:0,163 ino:3 uid:0 gid:5 rdev:136,0 O_RDWR /dev/pts/0 offset: 0 2: S_IFCHR mode:0600 dev:0,163 ino:3 uid:0 gid:5 rdev:136,0 O_RDWR /dev/pts/0 offset: 0 <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# sh -c 'for i in $(seq 1 10); do echo "$i"; sleep 10; done' & [1] 80 <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# 1 2 pstop 80 [1]+ Stopped(SIGSTOP) sh -c 'for i in $(seq 1 10); do echo "$i"; sleep 10; done' <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# prun 80 3 <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# 4 5 6 fg sh -c 'for i in $(seq 1 10); do echo "$i"; sleep 10; done' ^C <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# psig $PPID 1: (sd-stubinit) HUP default blocked INT default […] RTMIN+29 default blocked RTMAX default blocked <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# ptree $PPID 1 (sd-stubinit) 2 /bin/sh -i -l 93 ptree 1 <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# ptree root 1 (sd-stubinit) 2 /bin/sh -i -l 96 ptree root 2 /bin/sh -i -l 96 ptree root 2 /bin/sh -i -l 96 ptree root <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# sleep 5 & [1] 100 <mock-chroot> sh-5.3# pwait 100 [1]+ Done sleep 5 [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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Package requires ExcludeArch: %{ix86} [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ptools-0.2.13-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm rust-ptools-0.2.13-1.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/tmpz3po18ab')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/ptools/0.2.13/download#/ptools-0.2.13.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3500ac24334e603234f6ec3e2a2c3d50430090f80ee87167f8568892a57e8223 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3500ac24334e603234f6ec3e2a2c3d50430090f80ee87167f8568892a57e8223 Requires -------- ptools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) Provides -------- ptools: ptools ptools(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440297 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440297 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202440297%23c14 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
