[Bug 2367367] New: Review Request: rust-zbus-lockstep - Keep types in lockstep with DBus XML definitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367367
Bug ID: 2367367 Summary: Review Request: rust-zbus-lockstep - Keep types in lockstep with DBus XML definitions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decathorpe@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-zbus-lockstep.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-zbus-lockstep-0.5.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: Keep types in lockstep with DBus XML definitions.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367367
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132979520
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367367
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://crates.io/crates/zb | |us-lockstep
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9063912 (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=2367367
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com
--- Comment #4 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
General comments:
* Spec file was generated with rust2rpm * Tests were disabled because of missing files (they are not published to crates.io) --> OK * A new version (patch release) has been released since this ticket was created, I suggest updating before importing this package --> NOT A BLOCKER
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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-zbus-lockstep/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 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- zbus-lockstep-devel , rust-zbus-lockstep+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [!]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-zbus-lockstep-devel-0.5.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-zbus-lockstep+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-zbus-lockstep-0.5.0-1.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/tmpy9myosho')] checks: 32, packages: 3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-zbus-lockstep+default-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-zbus-lockstep-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/zbus-lockstep/0.5.0/download#/zbus-lockstep-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a22426b1bc2aca91de97772506f0655fa373448e6010d79d5d5880915c388409 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a22426b1bc2aca91de97772506f0655fa373448e6010d79d5d5880915c388409
Requires -------- rust-zbus-lockstep-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(zbus_xml/default) >= 5.0.1 with crate(zbus_xml/default) < 6.0.0~) (crate(zvariant/default) >= 5.1.0 with crate(zvariant/default) < 6.0.0~) cargo
rust-zbus-lockstep+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(zbus-lockstep)
Provides -------- rust-zbus-lockstep-devel: crate(zbus-lockstep) rust-zbus-lockstep-devel
rust-zbus-lockstep+default-devel: crate(zbus-lockstep/default) rust-zbus-lockstep+default-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-zbus-lockstep --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367367
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review! Looks like 0.5.1 has only very few changes compared to 0.5.0, I will update the package before importing it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367367
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #6 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-zbus-lockstep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367367
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |rust-zbus-lockstep-0.5.1-1. | |fc43 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2025-07-21 20:56:48
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Updated to 0.5.1, imported, and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ddc00366ef
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com