I still need to update this package to the recent 0.3.0 release, but I haven't had time to do that yet.

ack. flagging needinfo, let me know once the dependency is in Rawhide and you have an update, and I'll review

Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rpm-sequoia.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rpm-sequoia-0.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm

- updated to version 0.3.0
- updated to pseudo-rust2rpm 22
- updated to use SPDX license identifiers
- updated license listing to exclude build-time-only dependencies which are not linked into the final binary

I will refresh the license breakdown after importing / just before I build the package to make sure it's up-to-date.

Hi Michael,

[rpm 4.18 has been released](http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0) with support for the Sequoia OpenPGP backend.  To enable that backend on Fedora requires this package.  [There is interest in seeing this be the default backend for Fedora 38](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WCIIV7HGXW5Y7QCPKW6D3TILPOBFTCSS/).  As I understand it, to make progress on that, this package needs to be accepted.

Thanks and let me know if I can help.

This needs to be updated to 1.0.0 before proceeding, the 0.3.0 doesn't work with rpm 4.18.0 due to missing pgpPubkeyFingerprint() wrapping.

The two issues I ran into are
- soname bump (trivial to handle of course)
- new tests to cover symbol exports, which fails due to sha1collisiondetection (iirc) being too old on Fedora

I tried updating the package to v1.0.0, but it currently fails tests due to this issue:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-sequoia/issues/11

Meanwhile, I have updated sha1collisiondetection to v0.2.6, so that should not be a problem once the aforementioned issue is resolved.

v1.0.1, which I just released, should fix this issue.  Thanks for reporting it.

Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rpm-sequoia.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rpm-sequoia-1.0.1-1.fc36.src.rpm

Updated to v1.0.1, can confirm that the failing test is resolved.

Thanks @decathorp

LGTM, APPROVED

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

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


Issues:
=======

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

C/C++:
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", "GNU Library General Public License v2
     or later". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2087499-rust-rpm-
     sequoia/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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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:
[-]: 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 rpm-
     sequoia , rpm-sequoia-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]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[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: 3

rpm-sequoia.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librpm_sequoia.so.1 /lib64/libm.so.6
rpm-sequoia-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
rpm-sequoia.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL-3.0
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rpm-sequoia/1.0.1/download#/rpm-sequoia-1.0.1.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5fb273a0bb328288765b78401f9fe8ef452f322cb77aa94438606ced4b39a50a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5fb273a0bb328288765b78401f9fe8ef452f322cb77aa94438606ced4b39a50a


Requires
--------
rpm-sequoia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(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)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libhogweed.so.6()(64bit)
    libhogweed.so.6(HOGWEED_6)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libnettle.so.8()(64bit)
    libnettle.so.8(NETTLE_8)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

rpm-sequoia-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    librpm_sequoia.so.1()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(nettle)
    rpm-sequoia(x86-64)

rust-rpm-sequoia-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
rpm-sequoia:
    librpm_sequoia.so.1()(64bit)
    rpm-sequoia
    rpm-sequoia(x86-64)

rpm-sequoia-devel:
    pkgconfig(rpm-sequoia)
    rpm-sequoia-devel
    rpm-sequoia-devel(x86-64)

rust-rpm-sequoia-debugsource:
    rust-rpm-sequoia-debugsource
    rust-rpm-sequoia-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2087499
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, fonts, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the review!

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48202

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

Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2075105
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c07258a3c9

Thanks everybody!

I've been intending to review this myself but that was pending on me getting re-acquinted with the guidelines which would've taken some... It's been a while.