[Bug 2238171] New: Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

            Bug ID: 2238171
           Summary: Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract
                    documentation for the feature flags from comments in
                    Cargo.toml
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: decathorpe(a)gmail.com
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-document-features.spec
SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-document-features-0.2.7-1.fc38.s...

Description:
Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml.

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2238171] Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105962197


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2238171] Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

blinxen <h-k-81(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
           Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |h-k-81(a)hotmail.com
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
                 CC|                            |h-k-81(a)hotmail.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from blinxen <h-k-81(a)hotmail.com&gt; ---
Taking this review

General comments:

- Package was generated with rust2rpm and minor changes were made
- Tests are deactivated --> OK
- Dependency bump for `litrs` --> OK

APPROVED

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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]: 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 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:
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     document-features-devel , rust-document-features+default-devel , rust-
     document-features+self-test-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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-document-features-devel-0.2.7-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          rust-document-features+default-devel-0.2.7-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          rust-document-features+self-test-devel-0.2.7-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          rust-document-features-0.2.7-1.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/tmplr2swsio')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

rust-document-features+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-document-features+self-test-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.1 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: 3

rust-document-features+self-test-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-document-features+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/document-features/0.2.7/download#/documen...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
e493c573fce17f00dcab13b6ac057994f3ce17d1af4dc39bfd482b83c6eb6157
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e493c573fce17f00dcab13b6ac057994f3ce17d1af4dc39bfd482b83c6eb6157


Requires
--------
rust-document-features-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(litrs) >= 0.4.0 with crate(litrs) < 0.5.0~)
    cargo

rust-document-features+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(document-features)

rust-document-features+self-test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(document-features)



Provides
--------
rust-document-features-devel:
    crate(document-features)
    rust-document-features-devel

rust-document-features+default-devel:
    crate(document-features/default)
    rust-document-features+default-devel

rust-document-features+self-test-devel:
    crate(document-features/self-test)
    rust-document-features+self-test-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
rust-document-features --mock-config
/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Java, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Python,
Ocaml, C/C++, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2238171] Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171



--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
Thanks for the review! I hope this will make packaging gix crates less work
long-term.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2238171] Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-document-features


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2238171] Review Request: rust-document-features - Extract documentation for the feature flags from comments in Cargo.toml

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
   Fixed In Version|                            |rust-document-features-0.2.
                   |                            |7-1.fc40
        Last Closed|                            |2023-09-13 20:01:11



--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
Imported and built:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7a885cbc31


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238171

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...