[Bug 2180444] New: Review Request: rust-basic-toml - Minimal TOML library with few dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180444
Bug ID: 2180444 Summary: Review Request: rust-basic-toml - Minimal TOML library with few dependencies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium 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-basic-toml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-basic-toml-0.1.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: Minimal TOML library with few dependencies
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98977338
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180444
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/ba | |sic-toml
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5690294 (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=2180444
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
Spec file was generated with rust2rpm and was not modified. The only "issue" I found was with rpmlint (see output down below). There seem to be some duplicate / empty files in the `tests` directory. But I guess that should be fine since they are used for testing the library.
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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License". 175 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-basic- toml/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: 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- basic-toml-devel , rust-basic-toml+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 [-]: 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-basic-toml-devel-0.1.2-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-basic-toml+default-devel-0.1.2-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-basic-toml-0.1.2-1.fc39.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/tmpav7mfz8a')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-basic-toml-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/valid/empty.toml rust-basic-toml+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-basic-toml-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/invalid/table-empty.toml /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/invalid/empty-table.toml rust-basic-toml-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/valid/implicit-and-explicit-before.json /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/valid/implicit-and-explicit-after.json 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 2
rust-basic-toml-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/valid/empty.toml rust-basic-toml+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-basic-toml-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/invalid/table-empty.toml /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/invalid/empty-table.toml rust-basic-toml-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/valid/implicit-and-explicit-before.json /usr/share/cargo/registry/basic-toml-0.1.2/tests/valid/implicit-and-explicit-after.json 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/basic-toml/0.1.2/download#/basic-toml-0.1.2.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c0de75129aa8d0cceaf750b89013f0e08804d6ec61416da787b35ad0d7cddf1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c0de75129aa8d0cceaf750b89013f0e08804d6ec61416da787b35ad0d7cddf1
Requires -------- rust-basic-toml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.97 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo
rust-basic-toml+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(basic-toml)
Provides -------- rust-basic-toml-devel: crate(basic-toml) rust-basic-toml-devel
rust-basic-toml+default-devel: crate(basic-toml/default) rust-basic-toml+default-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-basic-toml --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, R, Java, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180444
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Great, thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180444
--- Comment #4 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-basic-toml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180444
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5ba0826100 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5ba0826100
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180444
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-29 00:01:27
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5ba0826100 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com