[Bug 2236533] New: Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533

            Bug ID: 2236533
           Summary: Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative
                    trait implementation macros
           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-impl-more.spec
SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-impl-more-0.1.6-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
Concise, declarative trait implementation macros.

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=2236533

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

[Bug 2236533] Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105578016


-- 
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=2236533

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

[Bug 2236533] Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533

Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://crates.io/crates/im
                   |                            |pl-more



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6359595
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...

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.


-- 
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=2236533

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

[Bug 2236533] Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533

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

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



--- Comment #3 from blinxen <h-k-81(a)hotmail.com&gt; ---
Taking this review

General comments:

- Package was generated with rust2rpm and minor changes were made
- A patch was added to remove files that are only required upstream
(Dockerfile, Justfile, etc.) --> should be OK
- Missing dev-dependencies in `Cargo.toml` were added --> I don't really
understand why they are missing but this should be 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-
     impl-more-devel , rust-impl-more+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: 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-impl-more-devel-0.1.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          rust-impl-more+default-devel-0.1.6-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          rust-impl-more-0.1.6-1.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/tmpxqqvylwx')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

rust-impl-more+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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: 2

rust-impl-more+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/impl-more/0.1.6/download#/impl-more-0.1.6...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
206ca75c9c03ba3d4ace2460e57b189f39f43de612c2f85836e65c929701bb2d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
206ca75c9c03ba3d4ace2460e57b189f39f43de612c2f85836e65c929701bb2d


Requires
--------
rust-impl-more-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo

rust-impl-more+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(impl-more)



Provides
--------
rust-impl-more-devel:
    crate(impl-more)
    rust-impl-more-devel

rust-impl-more+default-devel:
    crate(impl-more/default)
    rust-impl-more+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-impl-more --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Java, Python, SugarActivity,
fonts, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-- 
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=2236533

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

[Bug 2236533] Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533



--- 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-impl-more


-- 
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=2236533

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

[Bug 2236533] Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |MODIFIED



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
FEDORA-2023-3a715a24a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3a715a24a6


-- 
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=2236533

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

[Bug 2236533] Review Request: rust-impl-more - Concise, declarative trait implementation macros

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236533

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2023-09-13 11:55:49



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
FEDORA-2023-3a715a24a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
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=2236533

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