https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Bug ID: 2211180 Summary: Review Request: rust-sha256 - Crypto digest Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-sha256.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-sha256-1.1.3-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: Sha256 crypto digest.
Fedora Account System Username: salimma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Alias| |review-rust-sha256
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2211182 | |(review-rust-calamine)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211182 [Bug 2211182] Review Request: rust-calamine - Excel/OpenDocument Spreadsheets reader and deserializer in pure rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This crate claims to be "MIT AND Apache-2.0" (why AND??), but it only contains a license file for Apache-2.0, but no license file for MIT ... can you report this upstream? This looks very weird for a small crate like this ... it's literally only ~100 LOC.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(decathorpe@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
This crate claims to be "MIT AND Apache-2.0" (why AND??), but it only contains a license file for Apache-2.0, but no license file for MIT ... can you report this upstream? This looks very weird for a small crate like this ... it's literally only ~100 LOC.
Ah, good catch, thanks. Filed this: https://github.com/baoyachi/sha256-rs/issues/11
Updated spec and SRPM. Currently assuming it's still MIT AND Apache-2.0, but my PR fixes both issues in separate commits so hopefully upstream takes both changes.
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-sha256.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-sha256-1.1.3-1.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(decathorpe@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks for submitting those upstream. Adding the missing license file but keeping the AND specifier is a good solution for now, I think.
But it looks like you uploaded an unmodified SRPM file but the updated spec file? The contents don't match between the two links.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Side note: It might be a good idea to change the summary to "SHA256 crypto digest". The heuristic for trimming fails in this case ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #6 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- Updated summary and description, sorry for the delay. Also updated to the latest version for the updated calamine nu-command now needs, which contains the merged license PR
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-sha256.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-sha256-1.5.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.
- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide - test suite is run and all unit tests pass - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification (MIT OR Apache-2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines
Package APPROVED.
===
Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:
- set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically)
- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
- track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
--- Comment #8 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-sha256
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-899954a1f9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-899954a1f9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-899954a1f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-899954a1f9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-899954a1f9
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2024-01-04 00:45:33 |2024-01-17 01:05:16
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-63e1b288f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211180
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-899954a1f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com