[Bug 2365371] New: Review Request: rust-inetnum - Types for IP address prefixes and ASNs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365371

Bug ID: 2365371
           Summary: Review Request: rust-inetnum - Types for IP address
                    prefixes and ASNs
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rust-inetnum.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/rust-inetnum-0.1.1-1.fc43.src.rpm

Description:
Types for IP address prefixes and ASNs.

Fedora Account System Username: pemensik

[Bug 2365371] Review Request: rust-inetnum - Types for IP address prefixes and ASNs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365371

--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132518900

[Bug 2365371] Review Request: rust-inetnum - Types for IP address prefixes and ASNs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365371

--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík  ---
Have it built on copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pemensik/rust/

[Bug 2365371] Review Request: rust-inetnum - Types for IP address prefixes and ASNs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365371

Ben Beasley  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

[Bug 2365371] Review Request: rust-inetnum - Types for IP address prefixes and ASNs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2365371

Ben Beasley  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley  ---
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 (*NOT* pre-release 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)

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

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

The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm (except that rpmautospec
macros are expanded), greatly simplifying the review.

Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/inetnum-0.1.1/Changelog.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

Not a serious problem; due to reasonable design decision in rust2rpm

===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 11 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/2365371-rust-inetnum/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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-
     inetnum-devel , rust-inetnum+default-devel , rust-inetnum+arbitrary-
     devel , rust-inetnum+octseq-devel , rust-inetnum+serde-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

(Tests pass.)

[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.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132845672

[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 all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-inetnum-devel-0.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rust-inetnum+default-devel-0.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rust-inetnum+arbitrary-devel-0.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rust-inetnum+octseq-devel-0.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rust-inetnum+serde-devel-0.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rust-inetnum-0.1.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpqrp1cbfw')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 31 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.2 s

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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
checks: 32, packages: 5

5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 27 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.0 s

Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/inetnum/0.1.1/download#/inetnum-0.1.1.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
03940df8ac11c9903291f4e50567a070902e77b1be42305280b91b23d3ccac19
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
03940df8ac11c9903291f4e50567a070902e77b1be42305280b91b23d3ccac19

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

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

rust-inetnum+arbitrary-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(arbitrary/default) >= 1.3.0 with crate(arbitrary/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(arbitrary/derive) >= 1.3.0 with crate(arbitrary/derive) < 2.0.0~)
    cargo
    crate(inetnum)

rust-inetnum+octseq-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(octseq/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(octseq/default) < 0.6.0~)
    cargo
    crate(inetnum)

rust-inetnum+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.165 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.165 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~)
    cargo
    crate(inetnum)

Provides
--------
rust-inetnum-devel:
    crate(inetnum)
    rust-inetnum-devel

rust-inetnum+default-devel:
    crate(inetnum/default)
    rust-inetnum+default-devel

rust-inetnum+arbitrary-devel:
    crate(inetnum/arbitrary)
    rust-inetnum+arbitrary-devel

rust-inetnum+octseq-devel:
    crate(inetnum/octseq)
    rust-inetnum+octseq-devel

rust-inetnum+serde-devel:
    crate(inetnum/serde)
    rust-inetnum+serde-devel

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ben/fedora/review/2365371-rust-inetnum/srpm/rust-inetnum.spec
2025-05-16 18:07:18.521060286 -0400
+++
/home/ben/fedora/review/2365371-rust-inetnum/srpm-unpacked/rust-inetnum.spec   
    2025-05-08 20:00:00.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## 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 27
 %bcond check 1
@@ -103,3 +113,9 @@

%changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Fri May 09 2025 Petr Menšík  - 0.1.1-1
+- Initial rpm spec
+
+* Wed Nov 20 2024 Jasper den Hertog 
+- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2365371
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Python, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl,
SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH