[Bug 2256451] New: Review Request: rust-result-like - Option/Result-like monad interface for your own enum
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
Bug ID: 2256451 Summary: Review Request: rust-result-like - Option/Result-like monad interface for your own enum 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-result-like.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-result-like-0.5.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Option/Result-like monad interface for your own enum.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/re | |sult-like
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6848303 (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=2256451
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- This looks goood. The package is APPROVED.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The spec file is *exactly* as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review.
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/result- like-0.5.0/LICENSE 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/%license. The duplication appears to be harmless; if it is a problem, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm.
===== 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", "BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256451-rust-result-like/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
$ rpm -qL -p results/rust-result-like-devel-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/share/cargo/registry/result-like-0.5.0/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). [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- result-like-devel , rust-result-like+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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-result-like-devel-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-result-like+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-result-like-0.5.0-1.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/tmptalo5f67')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-result-like+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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-result-like-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-result-like-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-result-like+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', 'Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-result-like+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('enum', '%description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um') rust-result-like+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/result-like/0.5.0/download#/result-like-0.5.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : abf7172fef6a7d056b5c26bf6c826570267562d51697f4982ff3ba4aec68a9df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : abf7172fef6a7d056b5c26bf6c826570267562d51697f4982ff3ba4aec68a9df
Requires -------- rust-result-like-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(result-like-derive/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(result-like-derive/default) < 0.6.0~) cargo
rust-result-like+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(result-like)
Provides -------- rust-result-like-devel: crate(result-like) rust-result-like-devel
rust-result-like+default-devel: crate(result-like/default) rust-result-like+default-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2256451 -L result-like-deps/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, Python, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Built with local dependencies:
/home/ben/Downloads/review/result-like-deps/rust-result-like-derive+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
/home/ben/Downloads/review/result-like-deps/rust-result-like-derive-devel-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
--- Comment #3 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-result-like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-67bfe310ab has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-67bfe310ab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-06 17:51:23
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-67bfe310ab has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256451 Bug 2256451 depends on bug 2256454, which changed state.
Bug 2256454 Summary: Review Request: rust-result-like-derive - Derive macros for result-like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256454
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com