https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448376
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- This looks great, and the package is approved, BUT: please fix my typo in the License expression, which originated in the previous review and was copied into the latest submission. (BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND - Unlicense OR MIT + (Unlicense OR MIT) } Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Compared to the previous submission: - The cause of build failures on non-x86_64, 64-bit platforms is patched. This is adequately documented, with an appropriate upstream link. - The metadata patch is properly documented - The package is ExcludeArch: %{ix86}, which is consistent with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval and keeps you from having to fix 32-bit build failures. - The %{cargo_license_summary} comment is included, and the License expression is deduplicated and more nicely formatted. It still matches the %{cargo_license_summary} output. However, there is a typo copied from my suggestion: the last line, Unlicense OR MIT, needs parentheses, (Unlicense OR MIT). - Directory ownership issues are handled by co-owning the directories, which seems appropriate. This seems to fix all of the issues noted in the previous review. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. The file %{_libdir}/pkcs11/libsiguldry_pkcs11.so is a plugin, so it is correct that it is unversioned. It appears to be correctly installed, and is not in the default linker search path. 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260327/2448376-rust-siguldry- pkcs11/licensecheck.txt There’s a typo that needs to be fixed: the last line needs parantheses, (Unlicense OR MIT). [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkcs11(opensc- libs, p11-kit, gnome-keyring, kryoptic, tpm2-pkcs11, opencryptoki- libs, yubihsm-shell), /usr/share/p11-kit(opensc-libs, kryoptic, p11-kit), /usr/share/p11-kit/modules(opensc-libs, kryoptic, p11-kit) As previously discussed in the review, directory co-ownership seems appropriate here. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Package is ExcludeArch: %{ix86}, and this is necessary in this case, but does not require justification or tracking. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 5604 bytes in 2 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. Tests are correctly built and executed, but in practice there are no tests included in the crate that we can run. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143742733 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are correctly built and executed, but in practice there are no tests included in the crate that we can run. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: siguldry-pkcs11-1.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm rust-siguldry-pkcs11-1.0.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp6udcq3y7')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- siguldry-pkcs11: /usr/lib64/pkcs11/libsiguldry_pkcs11.so Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/siguldry-pkcs11/1.0.0/download#/siguldry-pkcs11-1.0.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 89c4ae4bd2e8b5931dedb294510422fad525afe4d1960ca675a5074fd44854cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89c4ae4bd2e8b5931dedb294510422fad525afe4d1960ca675a5074fd44854cd Requires -------- siguldry-pkcs11 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) siguldry Provides -------- siguldry-pkcs11: libsiguldry_pkcs11.so()(64bit) siguldry-pkcs11 siguldry-pkcs11(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/20260327/2448376-rust-siguldry-pkcs11/srpm/rust-siguldry-pkcs11.spec 2026-03-27 16:06:24.314409030 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/20260327/2448376-rust-siguldry-pkcs11/srpm-unpacked/rust-siguldry-pkcs11.spec 2026-03-19 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 28 %bcond check 1 @@ -106,3 +116,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Mar 19 2026 John Doe <[email protected]> - 1.0.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2448376 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2448376 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202448376%23c12 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
