[Bug 2256631] New: Review Request: rust-safetensors - Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Bug ID: 2256631 Summary: Review Request: rust-safetensors - Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thunderbirdtr@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://thunderbirdtr.fedorapeople.org/rust-safetensors/rust-safetensors.spe... SRPM URL: https://thunderbirdtr.fedorapeople.org/rust-safetensors/rust-safetensors-0.4... Description: Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/sa | |fetensors Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6854883 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- This looks good in general, except for an overly long Summary and missing license text required by the Apache-2.0 license. Please see detailed comments and recommendations below.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The differences are:
- Macros for rpmautospec are expanded in the uploaded source RPM; this is normal. - The patch safetensors-fix-metadata.diff removes benchmarking dependencies, which makes sense and is reasonable to do as a downstream-only patch.
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/safetensors-0.4.1/README.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
This is due to rust2rpm listing the entire %{crate_instdir}/ and then separately listing some of its contents as %doc. The duplication appears to be harmless; if it is a problem, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm.
- The package does not include the license text, even though the Apache-2.0 license requires it to be distributed with the software.
This was actually pointed out by rust2rpm:
# FIXME: no license files detected
I filed https://github.com/huggingface/safetensors/pull/416 to fix this in future upstream releases, but for now you must add
https://github.com/huggingface/safetensors/raw/v%%7Bversion%7D/LICENSE
as an additional Source1 and copy it into the crate in %prep:
cp -p '%{SOURCE1}' .
Then add “%license LICENSE” to the %files section.
- The summary copied from the crate is longer than 80 characters.
rust-safetensors.src: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart
Please consider manually editing the summary to fit within 80 characters.
===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- safetensors-devel , rust-safetensors+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described.
(tests passs)
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
The package does need to include a license file from upstream not provided in the current published crate.
[x]: 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. [?]: 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: [!]: 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 due to rpmautospec.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-safetensors-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-safetensors+default-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-safetensors-0.4.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================ rpmlint session starts ================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmplg841bz4')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors.src: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation = 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s =
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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
rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unsized', '%description -l en_US unsized -> undersized, sized') rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dtype', '%description -l en_US dtype -> type, typed, d type') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unsized', '%description -l en_US unsized -> undersized, sized') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dtype', '%description -l en_US dtype -> type, typed, d type') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/safetensors/0.4.1/download#/safetensors-0.4.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1659ef1c27917eb58c2d53664b5506d0b68c9cb9b460d3e0901011cf71269a8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1659ef1c27917eb58c2d53664b5506d0b68c9cb9b460d3e0901011cf71269a8e
Requires -------- rust-safetensors-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_json/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde_json/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo
rust-safetensors+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(safetensors)
Provides -------- rust-safetensors-devel: crate(safetensors) rust-safetensors-devel
rust-safetensors+default-devel: crate(safetensors/default) rust-safetensors+default-devel
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/srpm/rust-safetensors.spec 2024-01-03 12:25:13.452365629 -0500 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/srpm-unpacked/rust-safetensors.spec 2024-01-02 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.4.1) +## 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 25 %bcond_without check @@ -72,3 +82,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jan 03 2024 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.4.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2256631 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Java, PHP, C/C++, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #3 from Onuralp Sezer thunderbirdtr@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2007107 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2007107&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6854883 to 6857254
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6857254 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks for the update. The Summary looks good. You still need to copy the LICENSE file into the source tree and add it to the %files list so that it is present in the -devel subpackage.
%prep %autosetup -n %{crate}-%{version} -p1 cp -p '%{SOURCE1}' . %cargo_prep
and
%files devel %license LICENSE %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md %{crate_instdir}/
It wouldn’t hurt to link https://github.com/huggingface/safetensors/pull/416 in a spec-file comment above the added Source1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #7 from Onuralp Sezer thunderbirdtr@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2007470 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2007470&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6857254 to 6868306
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6868306 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #10 from Onuralp Sezer thunderbirdtr@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2007483 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2007483&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6868306 to 6868315
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6868315 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks for taking the time to get this right! The package is APPROVED; I recommended one more small change on import, so please take a look below.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The differences are:
- Macros for rpmautospec are expanded in the uploaded source RPM; this is normal. - The patch safetensors-fix-metadata.diff removes benchmarking dependencies, which makes sense and is reasonable to do as a downstream-only patch. - The LICENSE file from the upstream VCS repository is correctly and necessarily included as an additonal source, copied into the extracted crate in %prep, and packaged in the -devel package. - The Summary is shortened to fit in the recommended 80-character limit.
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/safetensors-0.4.1/README.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
This is due to rust2rpm listing the entire %{crate_instdir}/ and then separately listing some of its contents as %doc. The duplication appears to be harmless; if it is a problem, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm.
- I know I recommended
%files devel %license LICENSE
but that results in a duplicate LICENSE file in the -devel package. If you change this to
%files devel %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE
then the LICENSE file that is already installed with the crate (due to you correctly copying it into the source tree) will be the only copy, which is better.
The package complies with guidelines as-is, so this doesn’t block approval, but please do change it when you import the package.
===== 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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust- safetensors/20240106/2256631-rust-safetensors/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
$ rpm -qL -p results/rust-safetensors-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/rust-safetensors-devel/LICENSE
[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]: 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).
rust-safetensors.spec:28: W: non-break-space line 28, char 1
Use of a non-breaking space after the # in a spec-file comment is weird but harmless.
rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
Normal.
rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-safetensors-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/safetensors-0.4.1/LICENSE
[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: [x]: 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- safetensors-devel , rust-safetensors+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.
The added license file is taken from the upstream git repository and corresponds to the release. A PR was submitted to fix the missing license file in the crate. This is handled correctly (and handling it was mandatory since the chosen license requires license text distribution).
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
It wouldn’t hurt to describe the effect of safetensors-fix-metadata.diff in a spec-file comment.
[-]: 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.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111396845
[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 processing.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-safetensors-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-safetensors+default-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-safetensors-0.4.1-1.fc40.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpy88g8ly9')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-safetensors.spec:28: W: non-break-space line 28, char 1 rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-safetensors-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/safetensors-0.4.1/LICENSE ================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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
rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unsized', '%description -l en_US unsized -> undersized, sized') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dtype', '%description -l en_US dtype -> type, typed, d type') rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unsized', '%description -l en_US unsized -> undersized, sized') rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dtype', '%description -l en_US dtype -> type, typed, d type') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-safetensors-devel/LICENSE /usr/share/cargo/registry/safetensors-0.4.1/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/huggingface/safetensors/raw/v0.4.1/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c71d239df91726fc519c6eb72d318ec65820627232b2f796219e87dcf35d0ab4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c71d239df91726fc519c6eb72d318ec65820627232b2f796219e87dcf35d0ab4 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/safetensors/0.4.1/download#/safetensors-0.4.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1659ef1c27917eb58c2d53664b5506d0b68c9cb9b460d3e0901011cf71269a8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1659ef1c27917eb58c2d53664b5506d0b68c9cb9b460d3e0901011cf71269a8e
Requires -------- rust-safetensors-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_json/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde_json/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo
rust-safetensors+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(safetensors)
Provides -------- rust-safetensors-devel: crate(safetensors) rust-safetensors-devel
rust-safetensors+default-devel: crate(safetensors/default) rust-safetensors+default-devel
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/20240106/2256631-rust-safetensors/srpm/rust-safetensors.spec 2024-01-06 10:42:30.367302371 -0500 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/20240106/2256631-rust-safetensors/srpm-unpacked/rust-safetensors.spec 2024-01-05 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.4.1) +## 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 25 %bcond_without check @@ -76,3 +86,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Jan 06 2024 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.4.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2256631 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Perl, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, fonts, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-safetensors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-85466cc372 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-85466cc372
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-06 22:57:23
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-85466cc372 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com