https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357473 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- In general, the package looks good to me. I just have some non-blocking comments, suggestions for improvements, and potential questions for upstream. The only "blocking" thing that you need to resolve before importing the package would be to add ExcludeArch for i686, the package doesn't build there. ================================================================================ (0. It's a bit funny to see almost 200 lines of "setup" but then have the actual %build, %install, %check, and %files as essentially just boilerplate. :)) 1. ron 0.9.0 is actually out: https://crates.io/crates/ron/0.9.0 So this comment is no longer entirely accurate. It's still *somewhat* accurate, because we don't ship ron 0.9.0 yet, and I don't even know if 0.9.0-alpha would be compatible with 0.9.0 final - so it mightn't even help if we did. > # Downstream-only: Revert "feat: ensure successful round-trip of RON (#193)" > # This reverts commit 21c6a215432fea9a75b7d15d9a9936af9ccc17cb. > # We will not be packaging an alpha version of rust-ron. We can adjust this > # after ron 0.9.x is released. 2. I don't understand why pep440_rs and pep508_rs being only "passively maintained" is ... a problem, apparently? Or how they determined that they even *are* "passively maintained"? They have regular releases, and even their other project (astral-sh/ruff) still depends on them. I also don't see anywhere these crates are marked as "passively maintained" - there's a [badges] section in Cargo.toml that can contain maintenance status like that, but it's not set in either of these two crates. So maybe this is ill-informed or based on outdated information? 3. This reads a bit like getopt-salad, and I don't claim to understand what half these flags do: > %setup -q -T -D -b 200 -n uv_build-%{version} > %autopatch -p1 -m200 -M299 But I'm assuming they do what they're supposed to, because the build works :) I would definitely need to read the RPM documentation to understand what's going on, though. 4. I'm assuming there are no "Python" tests, i.e. runnable from pytest (or similar)? Then just running %cargo_test is fine. 5. Note that if you ever want to build this crate for old branches (like EPEL 9), you will need to "export RUSTFLAGS=%{build_rustflags}" or similar, because %set_build_flags only sets RUSTFLAGS on recent branches of Fedora (and I think in EPEL 10, but I'm not even sure about that). 6. You might need to add "ExcludeArch: %{ix86}" to this package. I launched a scratch build, and it failed on i686. 7. There's duplicate files warning from rpmlint, but that is probably unavoidable (license files bundled in pep440_rs and pep508_rs being identical). But it would be good to address the duplicates mentioned by Miro in the previous comment. 8. There is no manpage shipped (not a problem), and the explanation why it doesn't even really make sense to include one (executable only invoked by other programs, not by users directly) is documented. ================================================================================ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 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 216 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-uv-build-0.6.12-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm python-uv-build-0.6.12-1.fc43.src.rpm python3-uv-build.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uv-build python3-uv-build.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep508_rs/License-Apache /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep440_rs/License-Apache python3-uv-build.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep508_rs/License-BSD /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep440_rs/License-BSD 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-uv-build.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uv-build python3-uv-build.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep508_rs/License-Apache /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep440_rs/License-Apache python3-uv-build.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep508_rs/License-BSD /usr/share/licenses/python3-uv-build/LICENSE.bundled/pep440_rs/License-BSD 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/astral-sh/pubgrub/archive/b70cf707aa43f21b32f3a61b8a0889b15032d5c4/pubgrub-b70cf707aa43f21b32f3a61b8a0889b15032d5c4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64b53dc8b30240d6636cab321750f786e7f50594f0403a1f96b6e8e235014d0a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64b53dc8b30240d6636cab321750f786e7f50594f0403a1f96b6e8e235014d0a https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/uv_build/uv_build-0.6.12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0a096d8de959ffd20efd1bbb8e4621b511bf8d960f265d418b1a9ec0599781c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0a096d8de959ffd20efd1bbb8e4621b511bf8d960f265d418b1a9ec0599781c8 Requires -------- python3-uv-build (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-uv-build: bundled(crate(pep440_rs)) bundled(crate(pep508_rs)) bundled(crate(version-ranges)) python-uv-build python3-uv-build python3-uv-build(x86-64) python3.13-uv-build python3.13dist(uv-build) python3dist(uv-build) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357473 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202357473%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
