https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291307

--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118875787

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291307

blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |POST CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com

--- Comment #3 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review

General comments:

- Spec file was generated with rust2rpm - Tests were deactivated because of a missing dev-dependency --> OK

APPROVED

Package Review ==============

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

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

Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "Apache License 2.0". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/rust-sdd/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, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr, /usr/share/cargo [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 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- sdd-devel , rust-sdd+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-sdd-devel-0.2.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-sdd+default-devel-0.2.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-sdd-0.2.0-1.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/tmphtp6sgp6')] checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-sdd+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Scalable', 'Summary(en_US) Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable') rust-sdd+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('reclaimer', 'Summary(en_US) reclaimer -> reclaimed, declaimer, re claimer') rust-sdd+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Scalable', '%description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable') rust-sdd+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('reclaimer', '%description -l en_US reclaimer -> reclaimed, declaimer, re claimer') rust-sdd.src: E: spelling-error ('Scalable', 'Summary(en_US) Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable') rust-sdd.src: E: spelling-error ('reclaimer', 'Summary(en_US) reclaimer -> reclaimed, declaimer, re claimer') rust-sdd.src: E: spelling-error ('Scalable', '%description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable') rust-sdd.src: E: spelling-error ('reclaimer', '%description -l en_US reclaimer -> reclaimed, declaimer, re claimer') rust-sdd-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Scalable', 'Summary(en_US) Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable') rust-sdd-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('reclaimer', 'Summary(en_US) reclaimer -> reclaimed, declaimer, re claimer') rust-sdd-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Scalable', '%description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable') rust-sdd-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('reclaimer', '%description -l en_US reclaimer -> reclaimed, declaimer, re claimer') rust-sdd+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 0.7 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-sdd-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rust-sdd+default-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2

0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/sdd/0.2.0/download#/sdd-0.2.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b84345e4c9bd703274a082fb80caaa99b7612be48dfaa1dd9266577ec412309d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b84345e4c9bd703274a082fb80caaa99b7612be48dfaa1dd9266577ec412309d

Requires -------- rust-sdd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust

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

Provides -------- rust-sdd-devel: crate(sdd) rust-sdd-devel

rust-sdd+default-devel: crate(sdd/default) rust-sdd+default-devel

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-sdd --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, fonts, Python, R, Haskell, C/C++, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291307

--- Comment #5 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-sdd