https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #1 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- COPR fedora review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #3 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc...

Excluded s390x architecture due to missing dependencies there.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

Dorinda dbassey@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dbassey@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dbassey@redhat.com

--- Comment #5 from Dorinda dbassey@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0) or bsd_-3-Clause_clause". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio- vsock/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- virtio-vsock-devel , rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ======================================= rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp0l10lo4e')] checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation = 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 checks: 32, packages: 2

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-vmm/vm-virtio/main/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clau... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6d3ebd1c2f37d4fd83d0676621f695fc0cc2d8c6e646cdbb831b46e0650c208 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6d3ebd1c2f37d4fd83d0676621f695fc0cc2d8c6e646cdbb831b46e0650c208 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-vmm/vm-virtio/main/LICENSE-APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/virtio-vsock/0.6.0/download#/virtio-vsock-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f32bf3cad748b3004afe3afd860f060c4ec57f5ac329dd46f0b5bf8520244332 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f32bf3cad748b3004afe3afd860f060c4ec57f5ac329dd46f0b5bf8520244332

Requires -------- rust-virtio-vsock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(virtio-bindings/default) >= 0.2.2 with crate(virtio-bindings/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(virtio-queue/default) >= 0.12.0 with crate(virtio-queue/default) < 0.13.0~) (crate(vm-memory/default) >= 0.14.0 with crate(vm-memory/default) < 0.15.0~) cargo

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(virtio-vsock)

Provides -------- rust-virtio-vsock-devel: crate(virtio-vsock) rust-virtio-vsock-devel

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel: crate(virtio-vsock/default) rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (0d080d6) last change: 2024-04-09 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2299173 -v Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #7 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dorinda from comment #6)

There's a warning about `warning: rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID b6048b48: NOKEY`

This is the COPR repo GPG key being used.

also i think it may be better to use the doc macro in the license part

# dealing with missing license files in the crate
%license docs/LICENSE-APACHE
%license docs/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clause

other than that LGTM.

license files are required to be added using license macro to ensure they get installed even when the rpm is installed with `dnf install --nodocs` to comply with legal requirements. It also allow to see them when querying the rpm with `rpm -q --licensefiles`. More details at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #9 from Dorinda dbassey@redhat.com --- (In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #7)

license files are required to be added using license macro to ensure they get installed even when the rpm is installed with `dnf install --nodocs` to comply with legal requirements. It also allow to see them when querying the rpm with `rpm -q --licensefiles`. More details at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ LicensingGuidelines/

Sorry maybe it wasn't clear, I meant the path reference to use %{_docdir} instead `docs/`

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #11 from Dorinda dbassey@redhat.com --- (In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #10)

But %{_docdir} will resolve to /usr/share/doc within the target root while I'm referring to ./docs within the build directory.

Right! you can leave it as it is then.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #13 from Dorinda dbassey@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

===== MUST items =====

Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0) or bsd_-3-Clause_clause". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio- vsock/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- virtio-vsock-devel , rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.6 starting (python version = 3.12.3, NVR = mock-5.6-1.fc40), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/results install /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/results/rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/dorindabassey/Pictures/FedoraReview/2299173-rust-virtio-vsock/results/rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.6 INFO: Mock Version: 5.6 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M decba35020634fe290eb1bf7c800203c -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.r78s90e9:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 41 install /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /builddir/rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-virtio-vsock-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-virtio-vsock-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ======================================= rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp0rsa5igf')] checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation = 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =

Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-vmm/vm-virtio/main/LICENSE-BSD-3-Clau... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6d3ebd1c2f37d4fd83d0676621f695fc0cc2d8c6e646cdbb831b46e0650c208 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6d3ebd1c2f37d4fd83d0676621f695fc0cc2d8c6e646cdbb831b46e0650c208 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rust-vmm/vm-virtio/main/LICENSE-APACHE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/virtio-vsock/0.6.0/download#/virtio-vsock-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f32bf3cad748b3004afe3afd860f060c4ec57f5ac329dd46f0b5bf8520244332 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f32bf3cad748b3004afe3afd860f060c4ec57f5ac329dd46f0b5bf8520244332

Requires -------- rust-virtio-vsock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(virtio-bindings/default) >= 0.2.2 with crate(virtio-bindings/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(virtio-queue/default) >= 0.12.0 with crate(virtio-queue/default) < 0.13.0~) (crate(vm-memory/default) >= 0.14.0 with crate(vm-memory/default) < 0.15.0~) cargo

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(virtio-vsock) rust-virtio-vsock-devel(x86-64)

Provides -------- rust-virtio-vsock-devel: crate(virtio-vsock) rust-virtio-vsock-devel

rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel: crate(virtio-vsock/default) rust-virtio-vsock+default-devel

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (0d080d6) last change: 2024-04-09 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2299173 -v Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Perl, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, PHP, Java, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2040348 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2040348&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7773403 to 7783876

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #18 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #14)

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #8)

...

Looking at above fedora review you pasted, I'm a bit worried about:

Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr

I'm checking this one, I'll push an update.

This is a false positive from fedora-review. The directories *are* owned. Please don't own them again.

I know, it's just the generated rpm is not requiring the packages that on those directories.

If you think something generated by rust2rpm is wrong, please don't just monkey-patch it, but report a bug against rust2rpm.

Done: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/282

Side note: Pasting the fedora-review template isn't really helpful if the items with empty [ ] checkboxes aren't checked manually and filled [x] or [!].

Yes. @Dorinda can you please complete manual checks in next review round?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2040362 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2040362&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7783876 to 7784056

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #22 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc... review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc...

Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsock/build/778... fedora-review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #24 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #18)

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #14)

...

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #8)

...

Looking at above fedora review you pasted, I'm a bit worried about:

Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/licenses, /usr

I'm checking this one, I'll push an update.

This is a false positive from fedora-review. The directories *are* owned. Please don't own them again.

I know, it's just the generated rpm is not requiring the packages that on those directories.

No, it appears you misunderstood.

The rust-*-devel packages have an automatically added hard "Requires: cargo", and "cargo" owns "/usr/share/cargo/registry". The error printed by fedora-review error is just *wrong*.

...

If you think something generated by rust2rpm is wrong, please don't just monkey-patch it, but report a bug against rust2rpm.

Done: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/282

...

Side note: Pasting the fedora-review template isn't really helpful if the items with empty [ ] checkboxes aren't checked manually and filled [x] or [!].

Yes. @Dorinda can you please complete manual checks in next review round?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #26 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbonazzo/rust-virtio-vsoc...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #27 from Dorinda dbassey@redhat.com --- the SPEC file and SRPM for the Package looks ready to me @decathorpe can you give your review? Thanks!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING

--- Comment #28 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-virtio-vsock

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-452878792c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-452878792c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-452878792c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #32 from Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #31)

If you did the above change to work around the RPM warning that some files are listed twice, then please don't.

The way rust2rpm generates this %files list is intentional, and works correctly. I have confirmation from RPM upstream that the way this is done is OK, and an acceptable workaround for limitations of RPM.

I'll push a PR.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299173

--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-452878792c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-452878792c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-452878792c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.