Hello,  

I am not a packager yet (I am also in need of a sponsor).  I attempted to run fedora-review against this ticket and kept getting 404s from your SRPM link.  Could you please update it?  I'd be happy to give on unofficial review.  

--Robby

Thanks for pointing that out. I added the SRPM to the git repository, it should stay there now. The SRPM link is updated as well.

This is an UNOFFICIAL review.

I really don't have much to add here as this RPM was created with rust2rpm.  Except for rpmlint warnings, everything appears to be in good working order.  Let's see what the official reviewer says.


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

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



===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0". 6 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rcallicotte/Documents/devel/reviews/rust-atomic/review-rust-
     atomic/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     atomic-devel , rust-atomic+default-devel , rust-atomic+fallback-devel
     , rust-atomic+std-devel
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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
-------
Checking: rust-atomic-devel-0.5.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          rust-atomic+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          rust-atomic+fallback-devel-0.5.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          rust-atomic+std-devel-0.5.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          rust-atomic-0.5.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
rust-atomic-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/atomic HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-atomic-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/atomic-0.5.0/.cargo-checksum.json
rust-atomic+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/atomic HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-atomic+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-atomic+fallback-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/atomic HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-atomic+fallback-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-atomic+std-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/atomic HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-atomic+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-atomic.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/atomic HTTP Error 404: Not Found
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.


I am able to manually navigate to the above URLs... Not certain what rpmlint is complaining about here.



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/atomic/0.5.0/download#/atomic-0.5.0.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c3410529e8288c463bedb5930f82833bc0c90e5d2fe639a56582a4d09220b281
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c3410529e8288c463bedb5930f82833bc0c90e5d2fe639a56582a4d09220b281


Requires
--------
rust-atomic-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(autocfg/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(autocfg/default) < 2.0.0~)
    cargo

rust-atomic+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(atomic)
    crate(atomic/fallback)

rust-atomic+fallback-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(atomic)

rust-atomic+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(atomic)



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

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

rust-atomic+fallback-devel:
    crate(atomic/fallback)
    rust-atomic+fallback-devel

rust-atomic+std-devel:
    crate(atomic/std)
    rust-atomic+std-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rust-atomic
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Perl, R, Python, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

-Robby

I can sponsor. I was packaging atomic myself, before noticing this existed!

This looks fine, but could you update to 0.5.1 and consider turning on rpmautospec? it's on by default in the latest python3-rust2rpm 20.

Also, ohai fellow sr.ht user.

Hi, thanks for taking a look. I just updated the spec and the SRPM using rust2rpm 20. Will do the same with my other requests soon.

(In reply to Jan Baudisch from comment #5)
> Hi, thanks for taking a look. I just updated the spec and the SRPM using
> rust2rpm 20. Will do the same with my other requests soon.

This looks great, APPROVED - and you're now sponsored, congrats! Apologies for the delay, it's been a bit hectic. Note that you need to log in to https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/ for your new group memberships to take effect.

Feel free to ping me with any question, or to request reviews - I'll have more time for this next week.


There's Fedora Join as well - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/join/ - that are happy to answer questions, and for Rust specific questions we hang out in #rust:fedoraproject.org (Matrix) or #fedora-rust:libera.chat (IRC). You can use the Fedora Matrix instance at https://chat.fedoraproject.org/ or use your own account from another instance.

*** Bug 2040990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Ah, also:

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide
- test suite is run and all unit tests pass
- latest version of the crate is packaged
- license matches upstream specification (MIT or ASL 2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora
- license files are included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- add package to rust-sig with "commit" access

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- track package in koschei for all built branches: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/

Jan, are you having problems with the next steps? Let me know if you need assistance - thanks

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-atomic

Sorry for the delay. I just requestes the repo.
What do you mean by adding the packing to the rust-sig with commit access and setting the bugzilla assignee?

FEDORA-2022-fa52f73c20 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fa52f73c20

FEDORA-2022-fa52f73c20 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-8d2bae75a1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8d2bae75a1

FEDORA-2022-8d2bae75a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-47d9bc51eb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47d9bc51eb

FEDORA-2022-7e3e819640 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7e3e819640

FEDORA-2022-47d9bc51eb has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-47d9bc51eb \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47d9bc51eb

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

FEDORA-2022-7e3e819640 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-7e3e819640 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7e3e819640

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

(In reply to Jan Baudisch from comment #11)
> Sorry for the delay. I just requestes the repo.
> What do you mean by adding the packing to the rust-sig with commit access
> and setting the bugzilla assignee?

Looks like you figured that out - sorry, I meant 'add rust-sig to the package ACL'.

For bugzilla assignee, it's optional - don't worry about it

FEDORA-2022-7e3e819640 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-47d9bc51eb has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.