https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #1)
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/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
This is a problem with rust2rpm and not necessarily something that can be
fixed here.
I suppose the best way to handle this for now would be to remove the license
files and README from %{crate_instdir} in %install and just mark the relative
paths with `%doc` and `%license` to install them in the usual locations.
This way of doing this was added on request: we need the license files to
present
in %{crate_instdir} because some packages may access them in there (e.g. to
show a
the README internally in help or something like that). So right now we say
something
like
%files
%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE
%{crate_instdir}/
I thought rpm would be smart enough to understand that all files in that
directory
should be packaged, except that one should tagged as license. Maybe there's
some
way to tell rpm that.
(But yeah, that's something to fix in rust2rpm.)
- 's/Patch0:/Patch: /'. Source isn't numbered and Patch
doesn't need to be
either. Numbering Sources and Patches is done automatically in modern RPM
versions.
That's an RFE for rust2rpm too. Oh, I see you submitted a PR already. I'll take
a look.
rpmlint finds:
rust-print_bytes.src: W: strange-permission rust-print_bytes.spec 600
NOTE: This should be fixed
Meh, this is actually an obsolete check. git doesn't maintain a full permission
mask, but only three bits essentially: directory?, writable?, executable?.
Git simply doesn't store information about permission mask for other or group
users,
but just uses some fixed values (determined by umask, core.sharedRepository).
And of course dist-git is git. So even if we have a file with such permissions,
once
it's imported into dist-git, it'll get the usual mask anyway. So the whole
check and
the warning are just pointless.
rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
NOTE: spurious
rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
rust-print_bytes.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
rust-print_bytes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
NOTE: I assume you switched these to use SPDX identifiers now that that's
been
approved. The Change owners said[1] that's allowed now, but apparently
rpmlint
hasn't been updated.
Yeah. There's a PR for rust2rpm with this.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
NOTE: rust2rpm -p should probably give a more descriptive comment
than "# Initial patched metadata", but oh well.
Ack. It should at least say if it was generated automatically or by the
maintainer.
--
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=2103480