https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Bug ID: 2371231 Summary: Review Request: du-dust - A more intuitive version of du in rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jados42008@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/jad0s/balim-baliky/blob/master/du-dust.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jad0s/balim-baliky/raw/refs/heads/master/du-dust-1.2.1-1.... Description: dust is a more intuitive version of du written in Rust. It provides: - Visual disk usage representation - Colored output - Fast parallel scanning - Intuitive interface Fedora Account System Username: jados
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://crates.io/crates/du | |-dust
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9150067 (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=2371231
--- Comment #2 from Antonín Kolář jados42008@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jad0s/balim-baliky/refs/heads/master/du-du... SRPM URL: https://github.com/jad0s/balim-baliky/raw/refs/heads/master/du-dust-1.2.1-1.... Description: dust is a more intuitive version of du written in Rust. It provides: - Visual disk usage representation - Colored output - Fast parallel scanning - Intuitive interface Fedora Account System Username: jados
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lbalhar@redhat.com CC| |lbalhar@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- Package APPROVED.
There is only one problem: The specfile you've provided is not the same specfile you have in the SRPM - the difference is in the description:
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2371231-du-dust/srpm/du-dust.spec 2025-06-30 12:00:02.539460527 +0200 +++ /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2371231-du-dust/srpm-unpacked/du-dust.spec 2025-06-09 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -20,10 +20,5 @@
%global _description %{expand: -dust is a more intuitive version -of du written in Rust. It provides: -- Visual disk usage representation -- Colored output -- Fast parallel scanning -- Intuitive interface} +A more intuitive version of du.}
%description %{_description}
Both versions of the description are fine for me so it doesn't matter which version of the specfile you will use.
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". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2371231-du-dust/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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: 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 5536 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: du-dust-1.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm du-dust-1.2.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpvffit0li')] checks: 32, packages: 2
du-dust.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dust 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: du-dust-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpr1s7ds2a')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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
du-dust.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dust 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/du-dust/1.2.1/download#/du-dust-1.2.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d6fb1a8cf0ce125e519cec06da8bbbf4221f2c9b20d57278565379d60643d58d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d6fb1a8cf0ce125e519cec06da8bbbf4221f2c9b20d57278565379d60643d58d
Requires -------- du-dust (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- du-dust: du-dust du-dust(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2371231-du-dust/srpm/du-dust.spec 2025-06-30 12:00:02.539460527 +0200 +++ /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2371231-du-dust/srpm-unpacked/du-dust.spec 2025-06-09 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -20,10 +20,5 @@
%global _description %{expand: -dust is a more intuitive version -of du written in Rust. It provides: -- Visual disk usage representation -- Colored output -- Fast parallel scanning -- Intuitive interface} +A more intuitive version of du.}
%description %{_description}
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2371231 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, Haskell, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- 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/du-dust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8ee1d04db2 (du-dust-1.2.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8ee1d04db2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-07-05 08:50:33
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8ee1d04db2 (du-dust-1.2.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(jados42008@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Why was this packaged as "du-dust"? That's wrong for crates from crates.io.
The spec file in general is a mix-and-match from the templates for Rust crates from crates.io and non-crates.io projects, which is very strange.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
--- Comment #8 from Lumír Balhar lbalhar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7)
Why was this packaged as "du-dust"? That's wrong for crates from crates.io.
Why? The name of the RPM is an exact copy of the name of the crate on crates.io. It also has the same name in Debian and Nix. It's an application, so the rust prefix is not necessary in this case, I believe.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
--- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Well ... ok, it is technically *allowed* to do it this way, but it's not *supported* by rust2rpm.
Doing it this way requires manually rewriting the spec file for every update (i.e. working *against* the tooling) instead of being able to mostly just on rust2rpm (working *with* the tooling). As such, naming the package "du-dust" ***but*** still using the sources from crates.io is highly unusual (because you just get more work for no benefit whatsoever).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
Antonín Kolář jados42008@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jados42008@gmail. |needinfo+ |com) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371231
--- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Side note:
The name of the RPM is an exact copy of the name of the crate on crates.io.
The "rust-" prefix only applies to the name of *source packages*, not the built binary packages. So it would *always* have been the case that the user-installable package name would have been "du-dust". The way it's done now is just more work and deviates from best practices.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com