https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
Bug ID: 2120001 Summary: Review Request: rust-nu-system - Nushell system querying Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mairacanal@riseup.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mairacanal/rust-nu-system/main/rust-nu-sys... SRPM URL: https://github.com/mairacanal/rust-nu-system/raw/main/rust-nu-system-0.65.0-... Patch URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mairacanal/rust-nu-system/main/nu-system-f... Description: Nushell system querying Fedora Account System Username: mairacanal
Hi,
This is my first package on Fedora, so I still need to get sponsored by the packagers group. I decided to package nu-system as it is a dependency to build nu (also known as nushell), which is a great shell. I didn't bump the package to 0.67.0 as the other nu packages on Fedora are still on 0.65.0.
I really appreciate any feedback!
Best Regards, - Maíra Canal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
Maíra Canal mairacanal@riseup.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mairacanal/rust-nu-system/main/rust-nu-sys... SRPM URL: https://github.com/mairacanal/rust-nu-system/raw/main/rust-nu-system-0.65.0-... Patch URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mairacanal/rust-nu-system/main/nu-system-f... Description: Nushell system querying Fedora Account System Username: mairacanal
Koji Build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91061222
Hi,
This is my first package on Fedora, so I still need to get sponsored by the packagers group. I decided to package nu-system as it is a dependency to build nu (also known as nushell), which is a great shell. I didn't bump the package to 0.67.0 as the other nu packages on Fedora are still on 0.65.0.
I really appreciate any feedback!
Best Regards, - Maíra Canal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |michel@michel-slm.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Package LGTM, APPROVED. I can help sponsor.
Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
- set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate
- track package in koschei for all built branches
===
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/nu- system-0.65.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
===== 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", "MIT License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2120001-rust-nu- system/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 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. [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]: 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 nu- system , rust-nu-system-devel , rust-nu-system+default-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]: %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 file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 4
nu-system.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/ps /lib64/libm.so.6 nu-system.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ps nu-system.x86_64: W: no-documentation rust-nu-system+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-nu-system-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-nu-system-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/nu-system/0.65.0/download#/nu-system-0.65.0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2f6c1046a866eea93511793d483d17e5cb142c82c2fefdc132e17336d43d91df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f6c1046a866eea93511793d483d17e5cb142c82c2fefdc132e17336d43d91df
Requires -------- nu-system (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
rust-nu-system-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(procfs/default) >= 0.12.0 with crate(procfs/default) < 0.13.0~) cargo
rust-nu-system+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(nu-system)
rust-nu-system-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- nu-system: nu-system nu-system(x86-64)
rust-nu-system-devel: crate(nu-system) rust-nu-system-devel
rust-nu-system+default-devel: crate(nu-system/default) rust-nu-system+default-devel
rust-nu-system-debugsource: rust-nu-system-debugsource rust-nu-system-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2120001-rust-nu-system/srpm/rust-nu-system.spec 2022-08-29 12:38:04.979672612 -0500 +++ /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2120001-rust-nu-system/srpm-unpacked/rust-nu-system.spec 2022-08-20 13:05:03.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%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 22 %bcond_without check @@ -77,3 +86,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Sat Aug 20 2022 Maíra Canal mairacanal@riseup.net 0.65.0-1 +- Initial Fedora package
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120001 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Java, Perl, fonts, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-nu-system
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
David Wagner david.wagner@easymile.com has asked Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org for needinfo: Bug 2120001: Review Request: rust-nu-system - Nushell system querying https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
--- Comment #3 from David Wagner david.wagner@easymile.com --- The only useful file the nu-system package contains is /usr/bin/ps, which is strange. This binary is not at all a POSIX-compliant "ps".
Installing nu-system 0.65.0-2 on Fedora 35 thus breaks a lot of things, including /etc/profile scripts. I stumbled across this by installing opencv-devel. opencv-devel pulls Lmod (a lua package) which requires /usr/bin/ps and for some reason, dnf resolves that requirement by installing nu-system (and not procps-ng as I would expect).
Should I open a new bug report for that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
David Wagner david.wagner@easymile.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap | |roject.org) | |needinfo?(package-review@li | |sts.fedoraproject.org) CC| |david.wagner@easymile.com, | |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #3 from David Wagner david.wagner@easymile.com --- The only useful file the nu-system package contains is /usr/bin/ps, which is strange. This binary is not at all a POSIX-compliant "ps".
Installing nu-system 0.65.0-2 on Fedora 35 thus breaks a lot of things, including /etc/profile scripts. I stumbled across this by installing opencv-devel. opencv-devel pulls Lmod (a lua package) which requires /usr/bin/ps and for some reason, dnf resolves that requirement by installing nu-system (and not procps-ng as I would expect).
Should I open a new bug report for that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120001
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm |roject.org) |.name) |needinfo?(package-review@li | |sts.fedoraproject.org) | CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Yes, this package should not install an executable at all, least of which something that conflicts with existing system tools., I'll remove the "ps" binary from nu-system ASAP.
Michel, please be more careful when approving new packages. Things like this shouldn't happen.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com