https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
Bug ID: 2181021 Summary: Review Request: rust-crc64 - CRC64 checksum implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora.dm0@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-crc64.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-crc64-1.0.0-1.fc37.... Description: CRC64 checksum implementation. Fedora Account System Username: dm0
This is a dependency of the versionize crate, specifically the older 1.0 branch. The spec is automatically generated, except for a minor edit to the summary to add back the function name. Note that this builds a subpackage for the crc64 executable.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/cr | |c64
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5696220 (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=2181021
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Two comments:
1. The latest version is 2.0.0, but you're packaging 1.0.0. Please confirm that this is intentional.
2. The package ships a "crc64" package that contains /usr/bin/crc64. There doesn't appear to be any other package in Fedora that provides this binary, so it should be fine. Since this crate has no dependencies it should also be correct from a license standpoint (i.e. you don't need to list and take into account licenses of statically linked dependencies if there are none).
But if you don't need the /usr/bin/crc64 binary (i.e. firecracker only uses the Rust library and not the "crc64" executable), you could drop it from the package, it would make builds a bit faster. For example, this patch would do it ("rust2rpm -p" is your friend):
``` --- crc64-1.0.0/Cargo.toml 2016-01-07T03:02:35+00:00 +++ crc64-1.0.0/Cargo.toml 2023-03-23T14:01:59.277230+00:00 @@ -7,12 +7,8 @@ homepage = "https://github.com/badboy/crc64-rs" license = "BSD-3-Clause" readme = "README.md" +autobins = false
[lib] name = "crc64" path = "src/lib.rs" - -[[bin]] -name = "crc64" -path = "src/main.rs" -doc = false ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2181030
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181030 [Bug 2181030] Review Request: rust-versionize - Version tolerant serialization/deserialization framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #3 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- I updated the spec to patch out the binary, and yes, 1.0 is needed specifically: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/versionize/blob/3385d797c5e5f547562d8...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Great, looks good to me!
Just add a short comment between these two lines to explain what the patch does:
# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes +# * prevent crc64 binary from being built and shipped Patch: crc64-fix-metadata.diff
or something like that.
===
Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.
- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide - test suite is run and all unit tests pass - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification (BSD-3-Clause) and is acceptable for Fedora - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines
Package APPROVED.
===
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #5 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-crc64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #6 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- This seems to be failing tests on s390x.
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/7825/99197825/build.log
The failing test is the function to check if the algorithm works at all. Should I skip tests based on architecture, or use ExcludeArch? I think that would only require another ExcludeArch on rust-versionize.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Meh, the *one* crate where I think "it's a checksum calculator, what can go wrong, no need to run a scratch build" fails on big-endian arches ...
If the package does not work at all on big-endian architectures, then that's unfortunate ... adding "ExcludeArch: s390x" to this package and every crate that depends on it is OK in this case, but consider reporting the failure to the upstream project, and add a comment with the link to the upstream report above the ExcludeArch line.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #8 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- I tested it on a PowerPC G4 system, and it looks like updating to 2.0.0 fixes the failures. I've proposed it upstream here: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/versionize/pull/54
If they agree to that, I'll update the rust-crc64 package to the latest version. The only difference in the automatically generated spec is the version number. Here is a new SRPM URL if you want to re-review anyway: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-crc64-2.0.0-1.fc37....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b090d830e6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b090d830e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Great, this is a good outcome all around. Thanks for pushing this upstream!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-03-28 12:09:04
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b090d830e6 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=2181021
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-02106a6c13 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-02106a6c13
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a4085b6295 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a4085b6295
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-02106a6c13 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-02106a6c13
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a4085b6295 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a4085b6295 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a4085b6295
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a4085b6295 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181021
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-02106a6c13 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