6:18 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
Bug ID: 2246005
Summary: Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
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-snapbox-macros.spec
SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-snapbox-macros-0.3.6-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description:
Snapshot testing toolbox.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
6:18 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2246005] Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108056054
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:32 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2246005] Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563217
(failed)
Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
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.
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2246005] Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
blinxen <h-k-81(a)hotmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |h-k-81(a)hotmail.com
CC| |h-k-81(a)hotmail.com
Status|NEW |POST
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from blinxen <h-k-81(a)hotmail.com> ---
Taking this review
General comments:
- Package was generated with rust2rpm and no changes were made
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]: 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]: 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-
snapbox-macros-devel , rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel , rust-
snapbox-macros+color-devel , rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel
[x]: 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-snapbox-macros-devel-0.3.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel-0.3.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
rust-snapbox-macros+color-devel-0.3.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel-0.3.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
rust-snapbox-macros-0.3.6-1.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/tmpq75zfwpc')]
checks: 31, packages: 5
rust-snapbox-macros+color-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-snapbox-macros+color-devel".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-snapbox-macros-devel".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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: 4
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/snapbox-macros/0.3.6/download#/snapbox-ma...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ed1559baff8a696add3322b9be3e940d433e7bb4e38d79017205fd37ff28b28e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ed1559baff8a696add3322b9be3e940d433e7bb4e38d79017205fd37ff28b28e
Requires
--------
rust-snapbox-macros-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
rust
rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
crate(snapbox-macros)
rust-snapbox-macros+color-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(crate(anstream/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(anstream/default) < 0.7.0~)
cargo
crate(snapbox-macros)
rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
crate(snapbox-macros)
Provides
--------
rust-snapbox-macros-devel:
crate(snapbox-macros)
rust-snapbox-macros-devel
rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel:
crate(snapbox-macros/default)
rust-snapbox-macros+default-devel
rust-snapbox-macros+color-devel:
crate(snapbox-macros/color)
rust-snapbox-macros+color-devel
rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel:
crate(snapbox-macros/debug)
rust-snapbox-macros+debug-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
rust-snapbox-macros --mock-config
/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, PHP, Python, Haskell, Perl, Java, Ocaml,
SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:41 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2246005] Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
Thanks for the review!
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:42 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2246005] Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-snapbox-macros
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
4:59 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2246005] Review Request: rust-snapbox-macros - Snapshot testing
toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246005
Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version| |rust-snapbox-macros-0.3.6-1
| |.fc40
Status|POST |CLOSED
Last Closed| |2023-11-03 21:59:07
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> ---
Imported and built:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-386280f5b3
--
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=2246005
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
226
days inactive
236
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
6 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com