[Bug 2247020] New: Review Request: rust-speakersafetyd - Speaker protection daemon for embedded Linux systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Bug ID: 2247020 Summary: Review Request: rust-speakersafetyd - Speaker protection daemon for embedded Linux systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcan@marcan.st QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://mrcn.st/t/rust-speakersafetyd.spec SRPM URL: https://mrcn.st/t/rust-speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Speaker protection daemon for embedded Linux systems Fedora Account System Username: marcan
This is the speaker protection daemon implementing "smart amp" functionality for Apple machines running Fedora Asahi Remix.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Hector Martin marcan@marcan.st changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Hector Martin marcan@marcan.st --- Koji builds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108316416 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108317001 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108316992
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=2247020
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Initial spec review:
BuildRequires: rust-packaging >= 23, systemd
Ideally, build dependencies should be on their own lines. That makes it easier to observe in git diffs when dependencies change over time.
It also looks like you only need the RPM macros, so you should change your "BuildRequires: systemd" to "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #4 from Hector Martin marcan@marcan.st --- Updated the spec file, thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Some small drive-by comments (I hope you don't mind!):
- "rust-packaging >= 23" is obsolete, it should be "cargo-rpm-macros >= 24" now. It's also the new default with rust2rpm v25, which has been out for ~2 weeks.
- Looks like you're missing the systemd scriptlets for the service: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_syste...
- Making directory ownership explicit in %files is almost always better than having it implicit, for example
%{_datadir}/speakersafetyd %{_sharedstatedir}/speakersafetyd
would become
%{_datadir}/speakersafetyd/ %{_sharedstatedir}/speakersafetyd/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2224751 CC| |davide@cavalca.name
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2224751 [Bug 2224751] Fedora Asahi Remix: speaker support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/sp | |eakersafetyd
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6581915 (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=2247020
--- Comment #7 from Hector Martin marcan@marcan.st --- Thanks for the comments again! Updated the spec and the srpm with the fixes.
Note: the Copr F39 build is failing because this package depends on rust-alsa-0.8.1-1.fc39, which is in testing due to the freeze. There's already an override for it on bodhi.
Kicked off another scratch build just to verify: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108326364
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
%post %systemd_post speakersafetyd.service
%preun %systemd_preun speakersafetyd.service
%postun %systemd_postun_with_restart speakersafetyd.service
This needs "-n %{crate}" added to "%post"/"%preun"/"%postun" so that the scripts are associated with the right binary package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #9 from Hector Martin marcan@marcan.st --- Fixed, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in speakersafetyd See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
===== 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2247020-rust- speakersafetyd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 893 bytes in 1 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 speakersafetyd [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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) [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 ------- Checking: speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.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/tmpa8swegmx')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-speakersafetyd.src: W: strange-permission rust-speakersafetyd.spec 600 speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speakersafetyd speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j475.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j274.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j375.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j473.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j474.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j493.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j293.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j414.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j314.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j416.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j316.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j457.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j456.conf =========================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ===========================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 2
speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speakersafetyd speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j475.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j274.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j375.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j473.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j474.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j493.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j293.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j414.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j314.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j416.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j316.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j457.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j456.conf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/speakersafetyd/0.1.4/download#/speakersafety... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a73f3b9d33d65d56eb822cab4897b97220bc5ced68d69e11323b2baa3e1e7fa3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a73f3b9d33d65d56eb822cab4897b97220bc5ced68d69e11323b2baa3e1e7fa3
Requires -------- speakersafetyd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(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-speakersafetyd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- speakersafetyd: speakersafetyd speakersafetyd(x86-64)
rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource: rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ngompa/2247020-rust-speakersafetyd/srpm/rust-speakersafetyd.spec 2023-10-31 07:01:21.451171118 -0400 +++ /home/ngompa/2247020-rust-speakersafetyd/srpm-unpacked/rust-speakersafetyd.spec 2023-10-29 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## 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 24 %bcond_without check @@ -62,13 +72,14 @@ %endif
-%post -n %{crate} +%post %systemd_post speakersafetyd.service
-%preun -n %{crate} +%preun %systemd_preun speakersafetyd.service
-%postun -n %{crate} +%postun %systemd_postun_with_restart speakersafetyd.service
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Oct 30 2023 John Doe packager@example.com - 0.1.4-1 +- Uncommitted changes
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2247020 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
Issues:
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in speakersafetyd See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
This is already addressed in the spec, just not in the SRPM, so I'll give this a pass.
===== 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2247020-rust- speakersafetyd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
This can be fixed by adding "Requires: systemd-udev" to 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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 893 bytes in 1 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 speakersafetyd [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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) [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
Checking: speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.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/tmpa8swegmx')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-speakersafetyd.src: W: strange-permission rust-speakersafetyd.spec 600 speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speakersafetyd speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j475.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j274.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/ j375.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j473.conf:/usr/share/ speakersafetyd/apple/j474.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j493.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j293.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j414.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j314.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j416.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j316.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j457.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j456.conf =========================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ===========================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ 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: 2
speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speakersafetyd speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j475.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j274.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/ j375.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j473.conf:/usr/share/ speakersafetyd/apple/j474.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j493.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j293.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j414.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j314.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j416.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j316.conf speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j457.conf /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j456.conf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/speakersafetyd/0.1.4/download#/ speakersafetyd-0.1.4.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a73f3b9d33d65d56eb822cab4897b97220bc5ced68d69e11323b2baa3e1e7fa3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a73f3b9d33d65d56eb822cab4897b97220bc5ced68d69e11323b2baa3e1e7fa3
Requires
speakersafetyd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(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-speakersafetyd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
speakersafetyd: speakersafetyd speakersafetyd(x86-64)
rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource: rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
--- /home/ngompa/2247020-rust-speakersafetyd/srpm/rust-speakersafetyd.spec 2023-10-31 07:01:21.451171118 -0400 +++ /home/ngompa/2247020-rust-speakersafetyd/srpm-unpacked/rust-speakersafetyd. spec 2023-10-29 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## 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 24 %bcond_without check @@ -62,13 +72,14 @@ %endif
-%post -n %{crate} +%post %systemd_post speakersafetyd.service
-%preun -n %{crate} +%preun %systemd_preun speakersafetyd.service
-%postun -n %{crate} +%postun %systemd_postun_with_restart speakersafetyd.service
As mentioned earlier, this is actually fixed in the spec, just not in the SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- The only missing thing is "Requires: systemd-udev" in the main subpackage (called "%{crate}").
Aside from that, this looks good, so...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
Additionally, I've sponsored you as a packager. Have fun!
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=2247020
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Hello @marcan, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted.
A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging.
You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/
I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/598 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct.
Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- 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-speakersafetyd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8898103194 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8898103194
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-e9e1b2b88d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e9e1b2b88d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-11-07 01:39:45
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8898103194 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-e9e1b2b88d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com