https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256631 --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This looks good in general, except for an overly long Summary and missing license text required by the Apache-2.0 license. Please see detailed comments and recommendations below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The differences are: - Macros for rpmautospec are expanded in the uploaded source RPM; this is normal. - The patch safetensors-fix-metadata.diff removes benchmarking dependencies, which makes sense and is reasonable to do as a downstream-only patch. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/safetensors-0.4.1/README.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is due to rust2rpm listing the entire %{crate_instdir}/ and then separately listing some of its contents as %doc. The duplication appears to be harmless; if it is a problem, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm. - The package does not include the license text, even though the Apache-2.0 license requires it to be distributed with the software. This was actually pointed out by rust2rpm: # FIXME: no license files detected I filed https://github.com/huggingface/safetensors/pull/416 to fix this in future upstream releases, but for now you must add https://github.com/huggingface/safetensors/raw/v%{version}/LICENSE as an additional Source1 and copy it into the crate in %prep: cp -p '%{SOURCE1}' . Then add “%license LICENSE” to the %files section. - The summary copied from the crate is longer than 80 characters. rust-safetensors.src: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart Please consider manually editing the summary to fit within 80 characters. ===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- safetensors-devel , rust-safetensors+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests passs) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. The package does need to include a license file from upstream not provided in the current published crate. [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. [?]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: differences are due to rpmautospec. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-safetensors-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-safetensors+default-devel-0.4.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-safetensors-0.4.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================ rpmlint session starts ================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmplg841bz4')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors.src: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation = 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s = Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2 rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Functions to read and write safetensors which aim to be safer than their PyTorch counterpart rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unsized', '%description -l en_US unsized -> undersized, sized') rust-safetensors-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dtype', '%description -l en_US dtype -> type, typed, d type') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unsized', '%description -l en_US unsized -> undersized, sized') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dtype', '%description -l en_US dtype -> type, typed, d type') rust-safetensors+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/safetensors/0.4.1/download#/safetensors-0.4.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1659ef1c27917eb58c2d53664b5506d0b68c9cb9b460d3e0901011cf71269a8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1659ef1c27917eb58c2d53664b5506d0b68c9cb9b460d3e0901011cf71269a8e Requires -------- rust-safetensors-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_json/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde_json/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-safetensors+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(safetensors) Provides -------- rust-safetensors-devel: crate(safetensors) rust-safetensors-devel rust-safetensors+default-devel: crate(safetensors/default) rust-safetensors+default-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/srpm/rust-safetensors.spec 2024-01-03 12:25:13.452365629 -0500 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2256631-rust-safetensors/srpm-unpacked/rust-safetensors.spec 2024-01-02 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.4.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 25 %bcond_without check @@ -72,3 +82,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jan 03 2024 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.4.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2256631 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Java, PHP, C/C++, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2256631 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202256631%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
