[Bug 2290391] New: Review Request: rust-imgref - Two-dimensional slice for safe and convenient handling of pixel buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
Bug ID: 2290391 Summary: Review Request: rust-imgref - Two-dimensional slice for safe and convenient handling of pixel buffers 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-imgref.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-imgref-1.10.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: A basic 2-dimensional slice for safe and convenient handling of pixel buffers with width, height & stride.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118559993
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/im | |gref
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7528801 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-imgref Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicti...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2290391
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- You’ve correctly omitted CC0-1.0 from the license metadata (since it is not-allowed for code in Fedora), but the included LICENSE file contains only the CC0-1.0 text, and my understanding of Apache-2.0 is that section 4(a) requires the license text to be distributed with copies.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com
--- Comment #5 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
General comments:
* Spec file was generated with rust2rpm * License definition in Cargo.toml was patched since CC0-1.0 is not allowed in Fedora --> OK
Problems:
* License file for Apache-2.0 is missing
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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/rust-avif-serialize/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- avif-serialize-devel , rust-avif-serialize+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-avif-serialize-devel-0.8.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-avif-serialize+default-devel-0.8.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-avif-serialize-0.8.1-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq_dkt8ok')] checks: 32, packages: 3
rust-avif-serialize+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-avif-serialize-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-avif-serialize+default-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/avif-serialize/0.8.1/download#/avif-serializ... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 876c75a42f6364451a033496a14c44bffe41f5f4a8236f697391f11024e596d2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 876c75a42f6364451a033496a14c44bffe41f5f4a8236f697391f11024e596d2
Requires -------- rust-avif-serialize-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(arrayvec/default) >= 0.7.2 with crate(arrayvec/default) < 0.8.0~) cargo
rust-avif-serialize+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(avif-serialize)
Provides -------- rust-avif-serialize-devel: crate(avif-serialize) rust-avif-serialize-devel
rust-avif-serialize+default-devel: crate(avif-serialize/default) rust-avif-serialize+default-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-avif-serialize --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, R, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- It looks like you accidentally pasted in the fedora-review output that was meant for bug 2290390.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
--- Comment #7 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- It looks like I got a couple things mixed up yesterday :D, the reviews are correct but I pasted the wrong texts.
Here the correct review text:
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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-imgref/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo, /usr, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo [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). [!]: 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 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- imgref-devel , rust-imgref+default-devel , rust-imgref+deprecated- 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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-imgref-devel-1.10.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-imgref+default-devel-1.10.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-imgref+deprecated-devel-1.10.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-imgref-1.10.1-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp__dld35q')] checks: 32, packages: 4
rust-imgref+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-imgref+deprecated-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-imgref+deprecated-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-imgref-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-imgref+default-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 3
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/imgref/1.10.1/download#/imgref-1.10.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44feda355f4159a7c757171a77de25daf6411e217b4cabd03bd6650690468126 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44feda355f4159a7c757171a77de25daf6411e217b4cabd03bd6650690468126
Requires -------- rust-imgref-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo
rust-imgref+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(imgref) crate(imgref/deprecated)
rust-imgref+deprecated-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(imgref)
Provides -------- rust-imgref-devel: crate(imgref) rust-imgref-devel
rust-imgref+default-devel: crate(imgref/default) rust-imgref+default-devel
rust-imgref+deprecated-devel: crate(imgref/deprecated) rust-imgref+deprecated-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-imgref --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thank you both for the review!
- License file for Apache-2.0 is missing
Yikes, this is indeed something that I missed.
I filed a PR upstream to add the standard Apache-2.0 license text: https://github.com/kornelski/imgref/pull/25
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
--- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Pull request was merged. I've included the Apache-2.0 license text manually for now, until the next release. Updated files behind the same links.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Looks good now!
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
--- Comment #11 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290391
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |rust-imgref-1.10.1-1.fc41 Last Closed| |2024-07-07 16:45:15
--- Comment #13 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Unretired, updated, and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-94de81bbc7
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com