[Bug 2246012] New: Review Request: rust-bigdecimal - Arbitrary precision decimal numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
Bug ID: 2246012 Summary: Review Request: rust-bigdecimal - Arbitrary precision decimal numbers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decathorpe@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-bigdecimal.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-bigdecimal-0.4.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Arbitrary precision decimal numbers.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108057108
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563221 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2246012
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com
--- Comment #3 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
General comments:
- Package was generated with rust2rpm - Serde dependency was patched to allow newer versions of serde
Problems:
- The `devel` package requires the `bash` and `sh` binaries. This is probably a mistake and you should exclude `scripts` in `Cargo.toml`.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bigdecimal See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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 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 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]: 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 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- bigdecimal-devel , rust-bigdecimal+default-devel , rust- bigdecimal+serde-devel , rust-bigdecimal+std-devel , rust- bigdecimal+string-only-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [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]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-bigdecimal-devel-0.4.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-bigdecimal+default-devel-0.4.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-bigdecimal+serde-devel-0.4.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-bigdecimal+std-devel-0.4.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-bigdecimal+string-only-devel-0.4.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-bigdecimal-0.4.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp0u4jd89c')] checks: 31, packages: 6
rust-bigdecimal+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bigdecimal+serde-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bigdecimal+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-bigdecimal+string-only-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-bigdecimal+std-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-bigdecimal+default-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-bigdecimal-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-bigdecimal+serde-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-bigdecimal+string-only-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 5
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/bigdecimal/0.4.2/download#/bigdecimal-0.4.2.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c06619be423ea5bb86c95f087d5707942791a08a85530df0db2209a3ecfb8bc9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c06619be423ea5bb86c95f087d5707942791a08a85530df0db2209a3ecfb8bc9
Requires -------- rust-bigdecimal-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(autocfg/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(autocfg/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(libm/default) >= 0.2.6 with crate(libm/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(num-bigint) >= 0.4.0 with crate(num-bigint) < 0.5.0~) (crate(num-integer) >= 0.1.0 with crate(num-integer) < 0.2.0~) (crate(num-traits) >= 0.2.0 with crate(num-traits) < 0.3.0~) /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/sh cargo
rust-bigdecimal+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(bigdecimal) crate(bigdecimal/std)
rust-bigdecimal+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(bigdecimal)
rust-bigdecimal+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(num-bigint/std) >= 0.4.0 with crate(num-bigint/std) < 0.5.0~) (crate(num-integer/std) >= 0.1.0 with crate(num-integer/std) < 0.2.0~) (crate(num-traits/std) >= 0.2.0 with crate(num-traits/std) < 0.3.0~) cargo crate(bigdecimal)
rust-bigdecimal+string-only-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(bigdecimal)
Provides -------- rust-bigdecimal-devel: crate(bigdecimal) rust-bigdecimal-devel
rust-bigdecimal+default-devel: crate(bigdecimal/default) rust-bigdecimal+default-devel
rust-bigdecimal+serde-devel: crate(bigdecimal/serde) rust-bigdecimal+serde-devel
rust-bigdecimal+std-devel: crate(bigdecimal/std) rust-bigdecimal+std-devel
rust-bigdecimal+string-only-devel: crate(bigdecimal/string-only) rust-bigdecimal+string-only-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-bigdecimal --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks, good catch. I've excluded the "scripts" directory. Updated files at the same URLs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Looks good now!
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246012
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |rust-bigdecimal-0.4.2-1.fc4 | |0 Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-11-06 14:39:56
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b3685387e9
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com