https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2467933
--- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- This looks great except for a mismatch between the SPDX license expression and the actual license text, and a test failure on s390x. Details below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is the unmodified output of rust2rpm, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/netlink- packet-wireguard-0.4.1/CHANGELOG See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions. - The upstream license field in Cargo.toml is incorrect; the text of LICENSE-MIT doesn’t match the SPDX MIT license, but it precisely matches MITNFA. This is also an allowed license in Fedora, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/#_allowed_licenses, but you should patch the Cargo metadata and cite the PR I sent upstream to fix this, something like this in rust2rpm.toml: [package] cargo-toml-patch-comments = [ """ Correct license SPDX metadata from MIT to MITNFA: https://github.com/rust-netlink/netlink-packet-wireguard/pull/25 """, ] - The package fails to build from source on s390x with the following error: test socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1 ... FAILED test test::test_query_reply ... FAILED test test::test_query_request ... FAILED test test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg ... FAILED failures: ---- socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1 stdout ---- thread 'socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1' (820) panicked at src/socket_addr.rs:121:9: assertion `left == right` failed left: [fe80::e458:8ead:89bb:8e25%50331648]:51820 right: [fe80::e458:8ead:89bb:8e25%3]:51820 note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace ---- test::test_query_reply stdout ---- thread 'test::test_query_reply' (823) panicked at src/test.rs:135:63: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: DecodeError { msg: "failed to parse wireguard netlink attributes caused by buffer has length: 296, but the NLA is 1536 bytes" } ---- test::test_query_request stdout ---- thread 'test::test_query_request' (824) panicked at src/test.rs:36:63: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: DecodeError { msg: "failed to parse wireguard netlink attributes caused by buffer has length: 8, but the NLA is 1792 bytes" } ---- test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg stdout ---- thread 'test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg' (825) panicked at src/test.rs:217:63: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: DecodeError { msg: "failed to parse wireguard netlink attributes caused by buffer has length: 192, but the NLA is 2048 bytes" } failures: socket_addr::test::test_parse_socket_addr_in6_1 test::test_query_reply test::test_query_request test::test_setconf_against_exiting_wg test result: FAILED. 2 passed; 4 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148472714. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures As is typical for s390x-specific failures, this looks like an endianness bug, where some part of the code is assuming a little-endian architecture but s390x is big-endian. I haven’t investigated to see whether the error is in the crate’s library code, in the crate’s tests, or in one of the crate’s dependencies. Ideally, you could fix this bug and offer upstream a PR. You should at least report it upstream. If you can’t fix the bug, you can make the package ExcludeArch: s390x, but you must file a tracking bug blocking F-ExcludeArch-s390x, and everything that depends on this crate directly or indirectly will also have to be ExcludeArch: s390x. ===== 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. [!]: 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* MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2467933-rust-netlink-packet- wireguard/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 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- netlink-packet-wireguard-devel , rust-netlink-packet- wireguard+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. [-]: 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. FTBFS on s390x: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148472714 [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-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-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/tmpb9ugunwa')] 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/python3.15/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: 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/netlink-packet-wireguard/0.4.1/download#/netlink-packet-wireguard-0.4.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71c05dd0eec2e1107b42eabbf200af2e59241e28ab2cc995885db52da05d3ad0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71c05dd0eec2e1107b42eabbf200af2e59241e28ab2cc995885db52da05d3ad0 Requires -------- rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bitflags/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(bitflags/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.98 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.14 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(netlink-packet-core/default) >= 0.8.0 with crate(netlink-packet-core/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(netlink-packet-generic/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(netlink-packet-generic/default) < 0.5.0~) cargo rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(netlink-packet-wireguard) Provides -------- rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel: crate(netlink-packet-wireguard) purl(pkg:cargo/[email protected]) rust-netlink-packet-wireguard-devel rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel: crate(netlink-packet-wireguard/default) rust-netlink-packet-wireguard+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2467933 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Haskell, Python, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity 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=2467933 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202467933%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ 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
