[Bug 2463703] New: Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - rust date parser cate

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Bug ID: 2463703
           Summary: Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - rust date
                    parser cate
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL:
https://github.com/phoebehfharris/rust-diligent-date-parser-fedora/releases/...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/phoebehfharris/rust-diligent-date-parser-fedora/releases/...
Description: Source package for the diligent-date-parser rust crate
Fedora Account System Username: phoebeharris

[Bug 2463703] Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - rust date parser cate

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Phoebe Harris  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Comment|0                           |updated

--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/phoebehfharris/rust-diligent-date-parser-f...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/phoebehfharris/rust-diligent-date-parser-fedora/releases/...
Description: Source package for the diligent-date-parser rust crate
Fedora Account System Username: phoebeharris

[Bug 2463703] Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - rust date parser cate

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Phoebe Harris  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Comment|0                           |updated

--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/phoebehfharris/rust-diligent-date-parser-f...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/phoebehfharris/rust-diligent-date-parser-fedora/releases/...
Description: Library for parsing datetime in unknown format.
Fedora Account System Username: phoebeharris

[Bug 2463703] Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - Library for parsing datetime in unknown format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Fedora Review Service  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://crates.io/crates/di
                   |                            |ligent-date-parser
           Keywords|                            |AutomationTriaged

--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10405284
(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.

[Bug 2463703] Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - Library for parsing datetime in unknown format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Andreas Schneider  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 2463703] Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - Library for parsing datetime in unknown format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Andreas Schneider  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Looks good to me. Approved :-)

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

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

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[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",
     "MIT License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/2463703-rust-
     diligent-date-parser/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 or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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-
     diligent-date-parser-devel , rust-diligent-date-parser+default-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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-diligent-date-parser-devel-0.1.5-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          rust-diligent-date-parser+default-devel-0.1.5-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          rust-diligent-date-parser-0.1.5-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp813c_8af')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.1 s

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/diligent-date-parser/0.1.5/download#/diligen...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c8ede7d79366f419921e2e2f67889c12125726692a313bffb474bd5f37a581e9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c8ede7d79366f419921e2e2f67889c12125726692a313bffb474bd5f37a581e9

Requires
--------
rust-diligent-date-parser-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(chrono) >= 0.4.27 with crate(chrono) < 0.5.0~)
    cargo

rust-diligent-date-parser+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(diligent-date-parser)

Provides
--------
rust-diligent-date-parser-devel:
    crate(diligent-date-parser)
    rust-diligent-date-parser-devel

rust-diligent-date-parser+default-devel:
    crate(diligent-date-parser/default)
    rust-diligent-date-parser+default-devel

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/2463703-rust-diligent-date-parser/srpm/rust-diligent-date-parser.spec
2026-05-18 10:54:02.426423788 +0200
+++
/home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/2463703-rust-diligent-date-parser/srpm-unpacked/rust-diligent-date-parser.spec
       2026-04-28 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # Generated by rust2rpm 28
 %bcond check 1
@@ -68,3 +78,6 @@

%changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Tue Apr 28 2026 Phoebe Harris  - 0.1.5-1
+- Initial commit
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec

[Bug 2463703] Review Request: rust-diligent-date-parser - Library for parsing datetime in unknown format

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463703

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
             Blocks|                            |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
You will need to be sponsored into the packager group. Adding the needsponsor
blocker here.

Phoebe Harris: see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process...

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor