[Bug 2187677] New: Review Request: rust-pep440_rs - Library for python version numbers and specifiers, implementing PEP 440
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
Bug ID: 2187677 Summary: Review Request: rust-pep440_rs - Library for python version numbers and specifiers, implementing PEP 440 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-pep440_rs.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-pep440_rs-0.3.5-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: A library for python version numbers and specifiers, implementing PEP 440.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100099115
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl
--- Comment #2 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Please note, this is the first time I'm reviewing a Rust package as part of a review swap. I read through the packaging guidelines. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything important.
Issues/Questions ================
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- pep440_rs-devel , rust-pep440_rs+default-devel , rust- pep440_rs+pyo3-devel , rust-pep440_rs+serde-devel
=> Not sure about that one. Requires and provides in all the sub packages look good.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual 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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [-]: 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- pep440_rs-devel , rust-pep440_rs+default-devel , rust- pep440_rs+pyo3-devel , rust-pep440_rs+serde-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [=]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [+]: 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. [+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+]: %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
=> Just a warning about no documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to Sandro from comment #2)
Please note, this is the first time I'm reviewing a Rust package as part of a review swap. I read through the packaging guidelines. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything important.
Issues/Questions
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- pep440_rs-devel , rust-pep440_rs+default-devel , rust- pep440_rs+pyo3-devel , rust-pep440_rs+serde-devel
=> Not sure about that one. Requires and provides in all the sub packages look good.
Yeah, this is a false positive from fedora-review, maybe we need to add some rules for Rust packages for this ... There's no "%{name}" package for this check to apply to, and all built packages are "noarch" so "%{?_isa}" doesn't make sense.
The dependencies between the subpackages are automatically generated by the RPM dependency generators for Rust crates (which are correct, otherwise the dependency generator would've crashed and failed the build :))
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3)
Yeah, this is a false positive from fedora-review
I thought it might be something like that.
Package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
--- 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-pep440_rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187677
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-04-23 16:36:24
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-94882d2949
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com