https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2363659 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This looks good. Thanks! Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer) === Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/vsimd-0.8.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is not a real problem; it is due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm. ===== 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". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2363659-rust- vsimd/20250525/2363659-rust-vsimd/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 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: 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]: 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Unreleased upstream commit fixing license text inclusion is linked in a spec-file comment. [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- vsimd-devel , rust-vsimd+default-devel , rust-vsimd+alloc-devel , rust-vsimd+detect-devel , rust-vsimd+std-devel , rust-vsimd+unstable- devel [x]: Package functions as described. Tests pass [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Missing license text is correctly and necessarily patched in from upstream VCS, with an appropriate patch comment linking an unreleased upstream fix for the missing license file. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Assuming the build from the previous review is still valid: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132805951 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: differences are solely due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-vsimd-devel-0.8.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-vsimd+default-devel-0.8.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-vsimd+alloc-devel-0.8.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-vsimd+detect-devel-0.8.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-vsimd+std-devel-0.8.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-vsimd+unstable-devel-0.8.0-3.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-vsimd-0.8.0-3.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmpszfk8dly')] checks: 32, packages: 7 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 37 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 6 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 33 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Nugine/simd/raw/refs/tags/v0.8.0/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71674605ec4c087fe9eb534e3e4f9e26eb2e4aabcd76a29fd156c6a844d44b3d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71674605ec4c087fe9eb534e3e4f9e26eb2e4aabcd76a29fd156c6a844d44b3d https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/vsimd/0.8.0/download#/vsimd-0.8.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c3082ca00d5a5ef149bb8b555a72ae84c9c59f7250f013ac822ac2e49b19c64 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c3082ca00d5a5ef149bb8b555a72ae84c9c59f7250f013ac822ac2e49b19c64 Requires -------- rust-vsimd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust rust-vsimd+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vsimd) rust-vsimd+alloc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vsimd) rust-vsimd+detect-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vsimd) crate(vsimd/std) rust-vsimd+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vsimd) crate(vsimd/alloc) rust-vsimd+unstable-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(vsimd) Provides -------- rust-vsimd-devel: crate(vsimd) rust-vsimd-devel rust-vsimd+default-devel: crate(vsimd/default) rust-vsimd+default-devel rust-vsimd+alloc-devel: crate(vsimd/alloc) rust-vsimd+alloc-devel rust-vsimd+detect-devel: crate(vsimd/detect) rust-vsimd+detect-devel rust-vsimd+std-devel: crate(vsimd/std) rust-vsimd+std-devel rust-vsimd+unstable-devel: crate(vsimd/unstable) rust-vsimd+unstable-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2363659-rust-vsimd/20250525/2363659-rust-vsimd/srpm/rust-vsimd.spec 2025-05-25 08:07:29.401703370 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2363659-rust-vsimd/20250525/2363659-rust-vsimd/srpm-unpacked/rust-vsimd.spec 2025-05-21 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 3; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 27 %bcond check 1 @@ -125,3 +135,12 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu May 22 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.8.0-3 +- feat: update as per review comments + +* Fri May 02 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.8.0-2 +- feat: patch deps + +* Fri May 02 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.8.0-1 +- feat: init +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2363659 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Haskell, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2363659 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202363659%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
