[Bug 2187797] Review Request: rust-tracing-subscriber - Utilities for implementing and composing tracing subscribers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187797 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST|CLOSED Last Closed||2023-05-29 21:43:50 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-60b9675c1f -- 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=2187797 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2187797] Review Request: rust-tracing-subscriber - Utilities for implementing and composing tracing subscribers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187797 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tracing-subscriber -- 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=2187797 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2187797] Review Request: rust-tracing-subscriber - Utilities for implementing and composing tracing subscribers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187797 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! (In reply to blinxen from comment #3) > Taking this review > > General comments: > > - Package was generated with rust2rpm and a feature was removed > - Feature appears to be unstable, so I guess this is OK The removed features are gated behind a custom `--cfg` flag, which needs to be passed as RUSTFLAGS="--cfg tracing_unstable" environment variable, which is not supported for RPM builds, so removing them is the only sensible thing we can do. > - Tests were deactivated because they rely on an unpublished crate. I guess > this is OK but what is normally done here? Should this be reported to > upstream? I don't think this is useful to report to upstream. They choose not to publish the crate that's needed to run the tests, so there's not much we can do. > - Version 0.3.17 was published I will update the package before I import it. > APPROVED Thanks! -- 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=2187797 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2187797] Review Request: rust-tracing-subscriber - Utilities for implementing and composing tracing subscribers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187797
blinxen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||h-k...@hotmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|h-k...@hotmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from blinxen ---
Taking this review
General comments:
- Package was generated with rust2rpm and a feature was removed
- Feature appears to be unstable, so I guess this is OK
- Tests were deactivated because they rely on an unpublished crate. I guess
this is OK but what is normally done here? Should this be reported to upstream?
- Version 0.3.17 was published
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "*No copyright* MIT
License". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-tracing-
subscriber/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 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]: 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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-
tracing-subscriber-devel , rust-tracing-subscriber+default-devel ,
rust-tracing-subscriber+alloc-devel , rust-tracing-subscriber+ansi-
[Bug 2187797] Review Request: rust-tracing-subscriber - Utilities for implementing and composing tracing subscribers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187797 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100105504 -- 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=2187797 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
