https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2350888 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The package looks basically good. Updating to 1.2.0 will allow you to stop adding the license files as separate sources, and patching out benchmark-only dev-dependencies on criterion, galois_2p8, and reed-solomon-erasure will allow you to run the tests. Please submit an updated spec file and I should be able to approve it promptly. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm with some customization, simplifying the review. You can stop inserting the license files downstream when you update to 1.2.0: +# * https://github.com/WanzenBug/g2p/issues/9 +Source2: https://github.com/WanzenBug/g2p/raw/refs/tags/g2p-v1.1.0/LICENSE-APACHE +Source3: https://github.com/WanzenBug/g2p/raw/refs/tags/g2p-v1.1.0/LICENSE-MIT +cp -pav %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} . The tests are skipped with -%bcond check 1 +# * missing dev-dependencies: galois_2p8, reed-solomon-erasure +%bcond check 0 but it turns out that this is unnecessary since the missing dev-dependencies are benchmark-only. If you patch out criterion, galois_2p8, and reed-solomon-erasure from the dev-dependencies, you can run the tests without further ado. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/g2p-1.1.0/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is due to reasonable design choices in rust2rpm and is not a serious problem. ===== 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 (v2.0) or MIT license". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2350888-rust-g2p/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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 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]: 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: [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-g2p-devel , rust-g2p+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests would pass if they were enabled) [!]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. License files are correctly patched in from upstream, and this is necessary for 1.1.0; however, updating to 1.2.0 will make this unnecessary. [-]: 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. Tests are disabled due to missing dev-dependencies, but the missing dependencies are all benchmark-only. Please patch them out and run the tests. [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: [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 ------- Checking: rust-g2p-devel-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-g2p+default-devel-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-g2p-1.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpilbr1v1h')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-g2p+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 2 rust-g2p+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/WanzenBug/g2p/raw/refs/tags/g2p-v1.1.0/LICENSE-MIT : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : df5b69b93e9516d81153ddcf97ef5f9c78c7001d62a11b93a218a9707adbcd78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : df5b69b93e9516d81153ddcf97ef5f9c78c7001d62a11b93a218a9707adbcd78 https://github.com/WanzenBug/g2p/raw/refs/tags/g2p-v1.1.0/LICENSE-APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d4fffe07c625a42ecc075dc41f0fc32a21ad165bfc8981baaa623188e559021b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d4fffe07c625a42ecc075dc41f0fc32a21ad165bfc8981baaa623188e559021b https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/g2p/1.1.0/download#/g2p-1.1.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a9afa6efed9af3a5a68ba066429c1497c299d4eafbd948fe630df47a8f2d29f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a9afa6efed9af3a5a68ba066429c1497c299d4eafbd948fe630df47a8f2d29f Requires -------- rust-g2p-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(g2gen/default) >= 1.1.0 with crate(g2gen/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(g2poly/default) >= 1.1.0 with crate(g2poly/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-g2p+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(g2p) Provides -------- rust-g2p-devel: crate(g2p) rust-g2p-devel rust-g2p+default-devel: crate(g2p/default) rust-g2p+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2350888 -L qrdeps/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, R, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2poly+default-devel-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2poly-devel-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2gen+default-devel-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2gen-devel-1.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2350888 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202350888%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
