https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143144

Lukáš Zaoral lzaoral@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Lukáš Zaoral lzaoral@redhat.com --- Thanks Jan, LGTM!

- The "Package does not contain duplicates in %files." is a false positive as noted by Fabio Valentini in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138143#c5. - The "Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable." item is not applicable since the given packages are noarch.

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

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

Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/schemafy_lib-0.6.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files

===== 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", "MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lukas/tmp/jenda/2143144-rust-schemafy_lib/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: 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 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: [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- schemafy_lib-devel , rust-schemafy_lib+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 2

rust-schemafy_lib+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-schemafy_lib-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/schemafy_lib/0.6.0/download#/schemafy_lib-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af3d87f1df246a9b7e2bfd1f4ee5f88e48b11ef9cfc62e63f0dead255b1a6f5f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af3d87f1df246a9b7e2bfd1f4ee5f88e48b11ef9cfc62e63f0dead255b1a6f5f

Requires -------- rust-schemafy_lib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(Inflector/default) >= 0.11.0 with crate(Inflector/default) < 0.12.0~) (crate(proc-macro2/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(proc-macro2/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(quote/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(quote/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(schemafy_core/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(schemafy_core/default) < 0.7.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_derive/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde_derive/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_json/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde_json/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(syn/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(syn/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(uriparse/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(uriparse/default) < 0.7.0~) cargo

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

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

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

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143144 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143144

Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com

--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to Lukáš Zaoral from comment #1)

Thanks Jan, LGTM!

Just two quick comments:

• The "Package does not contain duplicates in %files." is a false positive

as noted by Fabio Valentini in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138143#c5.

This was also recently confirmed to me by Panu, the lead developer of RPM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138445#c5

• The "Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable." item is not

applicable since the given packages are noarch.

This has nothing to do with packages being noarch or not - but either way, the necessary versioned dependencies are automatically generated by the RPM dependency generator for Rust crates and do not need to be added manually.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143144

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

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

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-51b93647ae has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-51b93647ae` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-51b93647ae

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