[Bug 2179159] New: Review Request: rust-gst-plugin-version-helper - Build.rs helper function for GStreamer plugin metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
Bug ID: 2179159 Summary: Review Request: rust-gst-plugin-version-helper - Build.rs helper function for GStreamer plugin metadata Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium 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-gst-plugin-version-helper.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-gst-plugin-version-helper-0.7.5-1.f...
Description: Build.rs helper function for GStreamer plugin metadata.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/gs | |t-plugin-version-helper
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5652511 (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=2179159
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com
--- Comment #2 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
General comments:
- Spec file was generated with rust2rpm and no changes were made
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", "MIT License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-gst-plugin- version-helper/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. [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]: 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]: 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. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- gst-plugin-version-helper-devel , rust-gst-plugin-version- helper+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-gst-plugin-version-helper-devel-0.7.5-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-gst-plugin-version-helper+default-devel-0.7.5-1.fc39.noarch.rpm rust-gst-plugin-version-helper-0.7.5-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp4lk88kbh')] checks: 31, packages: 3
rust-gst-plugin-version-helper+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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 checks: 31, packages: 2
rust-gst-plugin-version-helper+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/gst-plugin-version-helper/0.7.5/download#/gs... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 87921209945e5dc809848a100115fad65bd127671896f0206f45e272080cc4c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 87921209945e5dc809848a100115fad65bd127671896f0206f45e272080cc4c9
Requires -------- rust-gst-plugin-version-helper-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(chrono) >= 0.4.23 with crate(chrono) < 0.5.0~) (crate(chrono/clock) >= 0.4.23 with crate(chrono/clock) < 0.5.0~) (crate(chrono/std) >= 0.4.23 with crate(chrono/std) < 0.5.0~) cargo
rust-gst-plugin-version-helper+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(gst-plugin-version-helper)
Provides -------- rust-gst-plugin-version-helper-devel: crate(gst-plugin-version-helper) rust-gst-plugin-version-helper-devel
rust-gst-plugin-version-helper+default-devel: crate(gst-plugin-version-helper/default) rust-gst-plugin-version-helper+default-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-gst-plugin-version-helper --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Python, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, R, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
--- Comment #3 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-gst-plugin-version-helper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-66eec1882b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-66eec1882b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-14c749a877 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-14c749a877
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-23761576e1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-23761576e1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-23761576e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-23761576e1 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-23761576e1
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=2179159
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-66eec1882b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-66eec1882b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-66eec1882b
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=2179159
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-14c749a877 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-14c749a877 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-14c749a877
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=2179159
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-04-22 21:47:33
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-66eec1882b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-23761576e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179159
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-14c749a877 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com