[Bug 2091637] New: Review request: rust-validator - common
validation functions (email, url, length, ...)
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091637
Bug ID: 2091637
Summary: Review request: rust-validator - common validation
functions (email, url, length, ...)
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: jtrystra(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Review request for rust-validator :
Rust validator is a library for common validation functions (email, url,
length, ...) and trait - to be used with `validator_derive`.}
I am packaging this crate because i would like to package the openid crate and
validator is a dependency.
Fedora username : jbtrystram
spec file :
https://gitlab.com/jbtrystram/fedora-review-requests/-/raw/main/rust-vali...
src.rpm file :
https://gitlab.com/jbtrystram/fedora-review-requests/-/raw/main/rust-vali...
When doing a mock build I encouter the following issue :
```
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rust-validator-0.15.0-1.fc37.x86_64
RPM build errors:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/.cargo-checksum.json
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/display_impl.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/lib.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/traits.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/types.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/cards.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/contains.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/email.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/ip.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/length.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/mod.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/must_match.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/non_control_character.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/phone.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/range.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/required.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/src/validation/urls.rs
/usr/share/cargo/registry/validator-0.15.0/tests/display.rs
```
These are the source files :
https://github.com/Keats/validator/tree/master/validator/src, so it is strange
they are not packaged.
Is there something I am doing wrong ? Or is there an issue with how this crate
is published on crates.io ?
Thanks
--
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=2091637
1 year, 6 months
[Bug 2054708] New: Review Request: liborc - Apache Arrow library
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054708
Bug ID: 2054708
Summary: Review Request: liborc - Apache Arrow library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: kkeithle(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/libarrow/libarrow-20220215/libarrow.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/libarrow/libarrow-20220215/libarrow-7.0...
Summary: Apache Arrow is a data processing library for analysis
Fedora Account System Username: kkeithle
this is a prerequisite, dependency for Ceph Quincy (17)
note: package is 64-bit only. Ceph is 64-bit only, and at least one of the
dependencies, i.e. liborc, does not build on 32-bit.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0". 1223 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2005989-liborc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/orc, /usr/include/orc
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/orc,
/usr/include/orc
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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]: 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
=========================== rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 30
plasma-store-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasma-store-server
parquet-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
parquet-glib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-glib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-store-server.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/home.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/home.png
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/left-insensitive.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/left-insensitive.png
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/left.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/left.png
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/right-insensitive.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/right-insensitive.png
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/right.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/right.png
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/style.css
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/style.css
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/up-insensitive.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/up-insensitive.png
libarrow-glib-doc.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-glib/up.png
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/arrow-flight-glib/up.png
29 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings, 0 badness; has
taken 14.1 s
--
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=2054708
1 year, 7 months