[Bug 2007419] New: Review Request: rust-rsix - Safe Rust bindings to POSIX-like/Unix-like/Linux syscalls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Bug ID: 2007419 Summary: Review Request: rust-rsix - Safe Rust bindings to POSIX-like/Unix-like/Linux syscalls Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lemasle@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-rsix.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-rsix-0.23.5-1.fc35.src.rpm
Description: Safe Rust bindings to POSIX-like/Unix-like/Linux syscalls.
Fedora Account System Username: olem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1993743, 1983172, 1983160 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com --- This is a re-review. Crate "posish" has been renamed "rsix", so the package "rust-posish" should be renamed "rust-rsix". This package obsoletes rust-posish. (Cf https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Pr...)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983160 [Bug 1983160] Review Request: rust-linux-raw-sys - Generated bindings for Linux's userspace API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983172 [Bug 1983172] Review Request: rust-cstr - Macro for building static CStr reference https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993743 [Bug 1993743] rust-bitflags-1.3.2 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419 Bug 2007419 depends on bug 1993743, which changed state.
Bug 1993743 Summary: rust-bitflags-1.3.2 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993743
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419 Bug 2007419 depends on bug 1983172, which changed state.
Bug 1983172 Summary: Review Request: rust-cstr - Macro for building static CStr reference https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983172
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|1983172 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983172 [Bug 1983172] Review Request: rust-cstr - Macro for building static CStr reference
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: rust-rsix - |Review Request: rust-rustix |Safe Rust bindings to |- Safe Rust bindings to |POSIX-like/Unix-like/Linux |POSIX/Unix/Linux syscalls |syscalls |
--- Comment #2 from Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com --- This is a re-review. Crate "posish" has been renamed "rsix", then "rustix", so the package "rust-posish" should be renamed "rust-rustix". This package obsoletes rust-posish. (Cf https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Pr...)
Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-rustix.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-rustix-0.27.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review. If another OCaml review is not too onerous, could you review bug 2028189?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues ====== - Same License field issue as with rust-linux-raw-sys: it should be "ASL 2.0 or MIT".
- As before, I question the usefulness of CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md and ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md as documentation in a Fedora package.
- This package has the appropriate Obsoletes. Should it have a Provides for the old name, too, or would that be wrong since the names are different?
- A newer version, 0.29.1, is available.
===== 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 243 files have unknown license. [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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 13
rust-rustix+async-std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+itoa-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+mio-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+once_cell-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+procfs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+socket2-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+tokio-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix.src: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+async-std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+itoa-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+mio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+once_cell-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+procfs-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+socket2-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+tokio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix.src: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+async-std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+itoa-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+mio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+once_cell-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+procfs-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+socket2-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+tokio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/COPYRIGHT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/COPYRIGHT rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/LICENSE-APACHE rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/LICENSE-Apache-2.0_WITH_LLVM-exception /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/LICENSE-Apache-2.0_WITH_LLVM-exception rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/LICENSE-MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/LICENSE-MIT rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/README.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/README.md rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/SECURITY.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/SECURITY.md ================ 13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 45 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 12
rust-rustix+async-std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+itoa-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+mio-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+once_cell-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+procfs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+socket2-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+tokio-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rustix+async-std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+itoa-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+mio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+once_cell-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+procfs-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+socket2-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+tokio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license-exception exceptions rust-rustix+async-std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+itoa-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+mio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+once_cell-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+procfs-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+socket2-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix+tokio-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license 2.0 rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/COPYRIGHT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/COPYRIGHT rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/LICENSE-APACHE rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/LICENSE-Apache-2.0_WITH_LLVM-exception /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/LICENSE-Apache-2.0_WITH_LLVM-exception rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-rustix-devel/LICENSE-MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/LICENSE-MIT rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/README.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/README.md rust-rustix-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-rustix-devel/SECURITY.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/rustix-0.27.1/SECURITY.md ================ 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 43 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ================
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rustix/0.27.1/download#/rustix-0.27.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cf06112a4351b0637374f18e47ce76f02a22cc193c408221e5d337328a94b485 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cf06112a4351b0637374f18e47ce76f02a22cc193c408221e5d337328a94b485
Requires -------- rust-rustix-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bitflags/default) >= 1.3.0 with crate(bitflags/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(cc/default) >= 1.0.68 with crate(cc/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(errno) >= 0.2.8 with crate(errno) < 0.3.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.98 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(libc/extra_traits) >= 0.2.98 with crate(libc/extra_traits) < 0.3.0~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/errno) >= 0.0.36 with crate(linux-raw-sys/errno) < 0.0.37~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/general) >= 0.0.36 with crate(linux-raw-sys/general) < 0.0.37~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/v5_11) >= 0.0.36 with crate(linux-raw-sys/v5_11) < 0.0.37~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/v5_4) >= 0.0.36 with crate(linux-raw-sys/v5_4) < 0.0.37~) cargo
rust-rustix+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rustix) crate(rustix/std)
rust-rustix+async-std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes/async-std) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes/async-std) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+itoa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(itoa) >= 0.4.7 with crate(itoa) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+mio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes/mio) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes/mio) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+once_cell-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(once_cell/default) >= 1.5.2 with crate(once_cell/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes/os_pipe) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes/os_pipe) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+procfs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(itoa) >= 0.4.7 with crate(itoa) < 0.5.0~) (crate(once_cell/default) >= 1.5.2 with crate(once_cell/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+socket2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes/socket2) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes/socket2) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes) < 0.5.0~) (crate(linux-raw-sys/std) >= 0.0.36 with crate(linux-raw-sys/std) < 0.0.37~) cargo crate(rustix)
rust-rustix+tokio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(io-lifetimes/tokio) >= 0.4.0 with crate(io-lifetimes/tokio) < 0.5.0~) cargo crate(rustix)
Provides -------- rust-rustix-devel: crate(rustix) rust-rustix-devel
rust-rustix+default-devel: crate(rustix/default) rust-rustix+default-devel
rust-rustix+async-std-devel: crate(rustix/async-std) rust-rustix+async-std-devel
rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel: crate(rustix/io-lifetimes) rust-rustix+io-lifetimes-devel
rust-rustix+itoa-devel: crate(rustix/itoa) rust-rustix+itoa-devel
rust-rustix+mio-devel: crate(rustix/mio) rust-rustix+mio-devel
rust-rustix+once_cell-devel: crate(rustix/once_cell) rust-rustix+once_cell-devel
rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel: crate(rustix/os_pipe) rust-rustix+os_pipe-devel
rust-rustix+procfs-devel: crate(rustix/procfs) rust-rustix+procfs-devel
rust-rustix+socket2-devel: crate(rustix/socket2) rust-rustix+socket2-devel
rust-rustix+std-devel: crate(rustix/std) rust-rustix+std-devel
rust-rustix+tokio-devel: crate(rustix/tokio) rust-rustix+tokio-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2007419 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ruby, PHP, Python, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Same comment here: "renaming" Rust packages doesn't really make sense. They are only ever installed in volatile / temporary environments, so even adding "Obsoletes" is obsolete. So you can just treat this as a new package, if that makes things easier.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
--- Comment #6 from Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com --- Thanks, I've removed the "Obsoletes", updated to latest upstream, updated the license, and removed the code of conducts.
Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-rustix.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-rustix-0.29.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Looks good. This package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #8 from Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com --- Thank you!
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/38754
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rustix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419 Bug 2007419 depends on bug 1983160, which changed state.
Bug 1983160 Summary: Review Request: rust-linux-raw-sys - Generated bindings for Linux's userspace API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983160
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-b8b6c82734 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8b6c82734
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-b8b6c82734 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b8b6c82734 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8b6c82734
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=2007419
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-de8f881a49 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-de8f881a49
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-de8f881a49 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-de8f881a49 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-de8f881a49
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=2007419
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2021-12-13 17:12:05
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-b8b6c82734 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-de8f881a49 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com