https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2437525
--- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- I am intentionally not assigning this review to myself at this time, because I am not certain I will have time to revisit it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Notes: ======= - It looks like you used rust2rpm.toml to “hide” the cranelift feature, something like: [features] hide = [ "cranelift", ] This is sensible, since cranelift is not packaged. None of the caveats in the rust2rpm.toml man page apply here: NOTE: Care needs to be taken to only "hide" features / optional dependencies that are not dependencies of other "non-hidden" features, otherwise the subpackages for the dependent features will have unsatisfiable dependencies. All features that are marked as "hidden" by this setting must be "unreachable" via feature dependencies from any feature subpackages that are still present in the generated spec file. In some circumstances, the only way to cleanly handle removal of unused non-default features is to patch Cargo.toml instead. Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ OK: the only C source file is examples/load_elf__block_a_port.c, and it’s impractical to run the example working from source, without the pre-compiled object file, as described in the comments in examples/load_elf.rs. You therefore won’t need a C or C++ compiler. Everything else is Rust. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/rbpf-0.4.1/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions. - The metadata patch disables all of the examples and removes many of the dev-dependencies. This may be the right thing to do, but please document why you can’t or shouldn’t run the examples. You can use something like the following in rust2rpm.toml: [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ """\ Omit all examples, and dev-dependencies required only for the examples, because \ lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor \ incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.\ """, ] - The file examples/load_elf__block_a_port.o is a pre-compiled ELF binary. You must remove this in %prep to prove it is not used when building the package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries You can use something like this in rust2rpm.toml: [scripts.prep] pre = [ "# Prove pre-compiled ELF object file(s) in the examples is not used:", "rm --verbose examples/*.o", ] I am a little torn about this, because there is no theoretical difference between the pre-compiled bytecode carried in this object file and the pre-compiled bytecode (some presumably hand-crafted, some documented as LLVM output) written out in hex form as byte strings in the various doctests. One is stored in a separate file, and one is inline, but they are both pre-compiled binary blobs. A strict reading of the guidelines might suggest that the doctests should be stripped out as well, a fairly impractical endeavor. I am inclined to suggest that as long as the inline bytecode is in the doctests, that should provide a reasonable barrier to its actually being somehow included in an application, and some flexibility is reasonable given that this is a JIT and it operates on bytecode. I still think that omitting the .o file is the right thing to do, though, firstly because it *looks* much more suspicious, and secondly because it’s more straightforward for “somthing, somewhere” to link a .o file that’s just sitting there in the installed examples than to pull hex strings out of rustdoc comments. - Some tests are omitted, and this is well-documented: # Skip doctests that fail in mock environment: # - JIT tests segfault (permission/environment issue) # - One doctest requires dev-dependency 'elf' %cargo_test -- --lib --bins However, the elf crate is packaged, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-elf, and it’s even at the version the dev-dependency asks for. Perhaps these doctests can be run after all? I tried this rust2rpm.toml: [[package.extra-patches]] number = 10 file = "rbpf-0.4.1-omit-some-jit-doctests.patch" comments = [ """\ Downstream-only: omit some JIT doctests that would fail (terminated by signal).\ """, ] [features] hide = ["cranelift"] [scripts.prep] pre = [ "# Prove pre-compiled ELF object file(s) in the examples is not used:", "rm --verbose examples/*.o", ] and this rbpf-0.4.1-omit-some-jit-doctests.patch: diff -Naur rbpf-0.4.1-original/src/lib.rs rbpf-0.4.1/src/lib.rs --- rbpf-0.4.1-original/src/lib.rs 2006-07-24 02:21:28.000000000 +0100 +++ rbpf-0.4.1/src/lib.rs 2026-06-22 11:14:09.629966095 +0100 @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// use rbpf::lib::{Error, ErrorKind}; /// use rbpf::ebpf; /// use core::any::Any; @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// let prog = &[ /// 0xb7, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // mov r0, 0 /// 0x95, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 // exit @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// use std::ptr::addr_of; /// /// struct MapValue { @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// let prog = &[ /// 0x79, 0x11, 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // Load mem from mbuff into r1. /// 0x69, 0x10, 0x02, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // ldhx r1[2], r0 @@ -1179,7 +1179,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// let prog = &[ /// 0xb7, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // mov r0, 0 /// 0x79, 0x12, 0x40, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // load mem from r1[0x40] to r2 @@ -1697,7 +1697,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// let prog = &[ /// 0x71, 0x11, 0x04, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // ldxb r1[0x04], r1 /// 0x07, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x22, 0x00, 0x00, // add r1, 0x22 @@ -2113,7 +2113,7 @@ /// /// # Examples /// - /// ``` + /// ```ignore /// let prog = &[ /// 0xb7, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x11, 0x22, 0x00, 0x00, // mov r0, 0x2211 /// 0xdc, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, // be16 r0 but I ended up with three failures in doctests that I had already attempted to ignore: failures: ---- src/lib.rs - (line 410) stdout ---- Test executable failed (exit status: 101). stderr: thread 'main' (1104) panicked at /tmp/rustdoctestTlBe0j/doctest_bundle_2024.rs:392:41: Could not read file: Os { code: 2, kind: NotFound, message: "No such file or directory" } note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ---- src/lib.rs - (line 344) stdout ---- Test executable failed (terminated by signal). ---- src/lib.rs - (line 308) stdout ---- Test executable failed (terminated by signal). failures: src/lib.rs - (line 308) src/lib.rs - (line 344) src/lib.rs - (line 410) test result: FAILED. 53 passed; 3 failed; 11 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.06s This is really mystifying. I’ve never seen this happen before. Perhaps you can make more progress. It would be nice to run those doctests that are OK! Or, perhaps we’ll have to give up on the doctests for now anyway. In that case, something like this should run as many non-doc tests as possible: [tests] run = [ "lib", "test:assembler", "test:common", # Requires cranelift to actually work, but skips gracefully without it "test:cranelift", "test:disassembler", # Segfaults on non-x86_64 architecture; TODO: why? # "test:misc", # Segfaults; TODO: why? # "test:ubpf_jit_x86_64", "test:ubpf_verifier", "test:ubpf_vm", ] comments = [ "Cannot run doctests because …", ] Furthermore, the above turns up some s390x-specific test failures that are probably little-endian assumptions. failures: ---- test_vm_be16_high stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_be16_high' (667) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:320:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 30600 right: 4386 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ---- test_vm_be32_high stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_be32_high' (669) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:350:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 1432778632 right: 287454020 ---- test_vm_ldxdw stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_ldxdw' (736) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:1796:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 1234605616436508552 right: 9833440827789222417 ---- test_vm_ldxh stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_ldxh' (737) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:1916:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 4386 right: 8721 ---- test_vm_ldxw stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_ldxw' (741) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:1996:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 287454020 right: 1144201745 ---- test_vm_subnet stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_subnet' (791) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:2772:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 0 right: 1 ---- test_vm_tcp_port80_match stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_tcp_port80_match' (792) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:2818:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 0 right: 1 ---- test_vm_tcp_sack_match stdout ---- thread 'test_vm_tcp_sack_match' (796) panicked at tests/ubpf_vm.rs:2895:5: assertion `left == right` failed left: 0 right: 1 failures: test_vm_be16_high test_vm_be32_high test_vm_ldxdw test_vm_ldxh test_vm_ldxw test_vm_subnet test_vm_tcp_port80_match test_vm_tcp_sack_match test result: FAILED. 137 passed; 8 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.01s error: test failed, to rerun pass `--test ubpf_vm` error: 1 target failed: `--test ubpf_vm` I’m guessing the defects are in test assumptions rather than in the library itself, but I haven’t investigated. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "MIT License". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2437525-rust- rbpf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. Pre-compiled .o file should be removed in %prep; bytecode in docstrings discussed above. [-]: 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. [x]: 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: [-]: 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- rbpf-devel , rust-rbpf+default-devel , rust-rbpf+std-devel [x]: Package functions as described. Most of the tests can be executed, and pass. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. It’s not clear why the examples can’t be tested. See Issues. [-]: 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. As submitted, yes; but if we enable non-lib tests, then we start to see some architecture-specific segfaults and some s390x-specific failures. See discussion in Issues. [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: [!]: 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). See: (this test has no URL) OK: differences are solely due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-rbpf-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-rbpf+default-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-rbpf+std-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-rbpf-0.4.1-1.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/tmpjl9wjc95')] checks: 32, packages: 4 rust-rbpf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf.src: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf.src: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 32, packages: 3 rust-rbpf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') rust-rbpf+std-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 15 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rbpf/0.4.1/download#/rbpf-0.4.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0c7fd1b4fdf96615efe17cfd01307737988fd17ece498e36f34d30e98726027d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0c7fd1b4fdf96615efe17cfd01307737988fd17ece498e36f34d30e98726027d Requires -------- rust-rbpf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(byteorder) >= 1.5.0 with crate(byteorder) < 2.0.0~) (crate(combine) >= 4.6.0 with crate(combine) < 5.0.0~) (crate(hashbrown) >= 0.16.0 with crate(hashbrown) < 0.17.0~) (crate(hashbrown/default-hasher) >= 0.16.0 with crate(hashbrown/default-hasher) < 0.17.0~) (crate(log) >= 0.4.0 with crate(log) < 0.5.0~) cargo rust-rbpf+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rbpf) crate(rbpf/std) rust-rbpf+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(combine/std) >= 4.6.0 with crate(combine/std) < 5.0.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo crate(rbpf) Provides -------- rust-rbpf-devel: crate(rbpf) rust-rbpf-devel rust-rbpf+default-devel: crate(rbpf/default) rust-rbpf+default-devel rust-rbpf+std-devel: crate(rbpf/std) rust-rbpf+std-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2437525-rust-rbpf/srpm/rust-rbpf.spec 2026-06-17 11:06:22.036273416 +0100 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2437525-rust-rbpf/srpm-unpacked/rust-rbpf.spec 2026-02-16 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + 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 28 %bcond check 1 @@ -85,3 +95,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Feb 16 2026 John Doe <[email protected]> - 0.4.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2437525 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, R, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, Perl 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=2437525 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202437525%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ 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
