https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80424129 -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev --- Comment #2 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev&gt; --- - The description seems a bit short and since it's the same as the summary, maybe something like this would be better? "A small helper function which determines whether or not the given path points to an executable file." If you think the original description is fine, please remove the trailing dot. - rpmlint reports a bunch of errors for the empty test files. Would it be possible to just remove them from the package? The warnings may be ignored. fedora-review output: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - rpmlint warnings and errors see below ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2035563-rust- is_executable/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- is_executable-devel , rust-is_executable+default-devel [?]: 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. [-]: 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 (manually) ---------------------------- rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_executable rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_executable_and_symlink rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_executable_on_windows.bat rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_not_executable rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_not_executable_and_symlink rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_executable rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/tests/i_am_executable_and_symlink rust-is_executable+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-is_executable-devel/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/LICENSE-APACHE rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/rust-is_executable-devel/LICENSE-MIT /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/LICENSE-MIT rust-is_executable-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/rust-is_executable-devel/README.md /usr/share/cargo/registry/is_executable-1.0.1/README.md ==== 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 4 warnings, 7 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==== Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/is_executable/1.0.1/download#/is_executab... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa9acdc6d67b75e626ad644734e8bc6df893d9cd2a834129065d3dd6158ea9c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa9acdc6d67b75e626ad644734e8bc6df893d9cd2a834129065d3dd6158ea9c8 Requires -------- rust-is_executable-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-is_executable+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(is_executable) Provides -------- rust-is_executable-devel: crate(is_executable) rust-is_executable-devel rust-is_executable+default-devel: crate(is_executable/default) rust-is_executable+default-devel -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-is_executable/rust-is_execu... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-is_executable/rust-is_execu... Changelog: - improve the package description - exclude appveyor.yml -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2038736 CC| |michel(a)michel-slm.name --- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; --- *** Bug 2038735 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038736 [Bug 2038736] Review Request: rust-nu-completions - Completions for nushell -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev&gt; --- Sorry for the delay, I don't know how I missed this. Thanks for the fixes, package approved! -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; --- Once this is available, we can update clap_lex, clap_derive, clap, clap_complete to 3.2.3. -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-is_executable -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-07-03 23:13:47 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-ce71a7e8fd has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-5ac07b90de has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5ac07b90de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3e878dfc84 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3e878dfc84 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3e878dfc84 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-5ac07b90de has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035563