[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 Javier Martinez Canillas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-12 23:35:37 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-blsctl -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini --- Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks! Package APPROVED. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464
--- Comment #8 from Javier Martinez Canillas ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7)
> I.e. something like the lines marked "+" are missing:
>
> %files -n %{crate}
> +%license LICENSE.gpl3
> %{_bindir}/blsctl
>
> %files devel
> +%license LICENSE.lgpl2
> %{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/
Thanks again for the feedback. There is a v3 that fixes this:
Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v3/rust-blsctl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v3/rust-blsctl-0.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini ---
I.e. something like the lines marked "+" are missing:
%files -n %{crate}
+%license LICENSE.gpl3
%{_bindir}/blsctl
%files devel
+%license LICENSE.lgpl2
%{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
Need to include both license files in the %{crate} -devel and subpackages.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: 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]: 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 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 --- Comment #5 from Javier Martinez Canillas --- (In reply to Javier Martinez Canillas from comment #4) [snip] > - Bump create version to 2.2.0, that contains a fix for the library crate > definition. I meant 0.2.2 here. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 --- Comment #4 from Javier Martinez Canillas --- A second version of this can be found here: Spec URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v2/rust-blsctl.spec SRPM URL: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rust-blsctl/v2/rust-blsctl-0.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Changes in v2: - Add the proper licence tags to the sub-packages for the binary and library creates. - Bump create version to 2.2.0, that contains a fix for the library crate definition. - Remove the rpm-libs dependency. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 --- Comment #3 from Javier Martinez Canillas --- Thanks a lot Fabio and Neal for the feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- The "rpm-libs" dependency should not be required, since it should auto-generate librpm dependencies. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- Taking a rough first look at this, there are some things that definitely need to be addressed: 1) Requires: rpm-libs This needs to be moved into the package that actually contains the binary (from line 22 to 31). 2) Cargo.toml specifies that this crate ships a shared library for use from C. But the dylib is not built, and the header file is not installed. Is this intentional? 3) Cargo.toml specifies license = "LGPL-2.1-or-later", but the crate contains both GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ license texts. Which license applies to what? Looking at the license headers, it seems like the "blsctl" binary is GPLv3+ and the crate library component is LGPLv2+. The License tags in the .spec file need to reflect that. Assuming my assessment is correct, you'll need to add a "License: GPLv3+" tag to the binary package (line 32). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 Bug 1886464 depends on bug 1886463, which changed state. Bug 1886463 Summary: Review Request: rust-serial_test - Allows for the creation of serialised Rust tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886463 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1886464] Review Request: rust-blsctl - Manages BLS entries and kernel cmdline options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886464 Javier Martinez Canillas changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1886463 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886463 [Bug 1886463] Review Request: rust-serial_test - Allows for the creation of serialised Rust tests -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
