https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293783

Ryan errornointernet@envs.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |errornointernet@envs.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |errornointernet@envs.net

--- Comment #2 from Ryan errornointernet@envs.net --- Package approved.

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

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

Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/onefetch- image-2.21.0/CHANGELOG.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files

Not serious.

===== 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data/projects/fedora- review/2293783-rust-onefetch-image/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]: 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 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: [-]: 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- onefetch-image-devel , rust-onefetch-image+default-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. [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]: 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: [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-onefetch-image-devel-2.21.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-onefetch-image+default-devel-2.21.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-onefetch-image-2.21.0-1.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/tmp8p9uali8')] checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-onefetch-image+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ==================================================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =====================================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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

rust-onefetch-image+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/onefetch-image/2.21.0/download#/onefetch-ima... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55d6e1574271b8e297386044e454aa539df1a579581faa8c2cd6ad3402afe03f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55d6e1574271b8e297386044e454aa539df1a579581faa8c2cd6ad3402afe03f

Requires -------- rust-onefetch-image-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(anyhow/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(anyhow/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(base64/default) >= 0.22.1 with crate(base64/default) < 0.23.0~) (crate(clap/default) >= 4.5.4 with crate(clap/default) < 5.0.0~) (crate(clap/derive) >= 4.5.4 with crate(clap/derive) < 5.0.0~) (crate(color_quant/default) >= 1.1.0 with crate(color_quant/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(image/default) >= 0.24.9 with crate(image/default) < 0.25.0~) (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.154 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo

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

Provides -------- rust-onefetch-image-devel: crate(onefetch-image) rust-onefetch-image-devel

rust-onefetch-image+default-devel: crate(onefetch-image/default) rust-onefetch-image+default-devel

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2293783 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Python, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293783

Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST

--- Comment #4 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-onefetch-image

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293783

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-06-25 18:29:28

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-0f4dea1125 (rust-onefetch-image-2.21.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293783

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-d8509b61d9 (rust-onefetch-ascii-2.21.0-1.fc39 and rust-onefetch-image-2.21.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d8509b61d9

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293783

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-d8509b61d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-d8509b61d9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d8509b61d9

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293783

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4f15c1edf7 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4f15c1edf7 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4f15c1edf7

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