https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365372
Konstantinos Vasilopoulos <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Konstantinos Vasilopoulos <[email protected]> --- NEEDSWORK; fedora-review raises the following issue: the Changelog.md, README.md and LICENSE files are duplicated in %files. This is caused by the %doc/%license lines (and again via the directory glob %{crate_instdir}/). The %doc lines should probably be removed. You could also amend the patch comment (SPEC file line 15) to explain what the patch does. ie it relaxes the constrain of the clap dependency to 4.4, because Fedora rawhide ships clap 4.6.0. FYI this is my first review ever, so I am not that familiar with how things work. However, I did spend a spend a substantial amount of time poring over this and I think I understand how it all works. 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/daemonbase-0.1.2/Changelog.md 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 14 files have unknown license; this is expected for Rust crates, which use a single top-level LICENSE file rather than embedding per-file license headers. [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. [-]: 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 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: [-]: 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- daemonbase-devel , rust-daemonbase+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). This is a macro expansion happening. I think this is harmless. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-daemonbase-devel-0.1.2-2.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-daemonbase+default-devel-0.1.2-2.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-daemonbase-0.1.2-2.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/tmpzenrvuib')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 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/daemonbase/0.1.2/download#/daemonbase-0.1.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1633f8b2a2a1beb427c6719ec89fd428d3503369dc1cc03a283da5a5697ed43b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1633f8b2a2a1beb427c6719ec89fd428d3503369dc1cc03a283da5a5697ed43b Requires -------- rust-daemonbase-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(chrono/default) >= 0.4.23 with crate(chrono/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(clap/default) >= 4.4.0 with crate(clap/default) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/derive) >= 4.4.0 with crate(clap/derive) < 5.0.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.8 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(nix/default) >= 0.27.1 with crate(nix/default) < 0.28.0~) (crate(nix/fs) >= 0.27.1 with crate(nix/fs) < 0.28.0~) (crate(nix/process) >= 0.27.1 with crate(nix/process) < 0.28.0~) (crate(nix/user) >= 0.27.1 with crate(nix/user) < 0.28.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.95 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.95 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(syslog/default) >= 6.0.0 with crate(syslog/default) < 7.0.0~) (crate(toml_edit/default) >= 0.22.0 with crate(toml_edit/default) < 0.23.0~) cargo rust rust-daemonbase+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(daemonbase) Provides -------- rust-daemonbase-devel: crate(daemonbase) rust-daemonbase-devel rust-daemonbase+default-devel: crate(daemonbase/default) rust-daemonbase+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/kvasi/Remote/fedora_reviews/rust_daemonbase_2365372/2365372-rust-daemonbase/srpm/rust-daemonbase.spec 2026-06-02 11:00:18.626806419 +0300 +++ /home/kvasi/Remote/fedora_reviews/rust_daemonbase_2365372/2365372-rust-daemonbase/srpm-unpacked/rust-daemonbase.spec 2025-05-09 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 27 %bcond check 1 @@ -69,3 +79,12 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri May 09 2025 Petr Menšík <[email protected]> - 0.1.2-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Fri May 09 2025 Petr Menšík <[email protected]> - 0.1.2-1 +- Downgrade to 0.1.2 version to satisfy rawhide versions + +* Fri May 09 2025 Petr Menšík <[email protected]> - 0.1.3-1 +- Fedora RPM spec +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2365372 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Python, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365372 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202365372%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
