https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255554 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The only thing out of the ordinary here is the recent relicensing away from CC0-1.0 that hasn’t yet been released on crates.io. I follow your reasoning on why it‘s OK to patch this in the way you did, and I agree. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The changes are summarized as follows: - The patch hexf-parse-fix-metadata.diff adjusts the license from CC0-1.0 to 0BSD, which is a backport of https://github.com/lifthrasiir/hexf/commit/8a14eb6 and properly documented in a spec-file comment. There would still be no reason to patch the license if CC0-1.0 were allowed for code in Fedora, but it isn’t, so there is good reason to attempt this. Normally, a downstream license change like this would be on “thin ice,” but I think it can be justified here. Upstream has agreed to the new license and committed the change to git, with explicit agreement from contributors in https://github.com/lifthrasiir/hexf/issues/26. Where there could perhaps be a problem is if there were old code that was removed after the current release and then somehow not included in the relicensing. In this case: - examination of git commits since the 0.2.1 release does not show any nontrivial removals - upstream did not specify that the relicensing applies only beginning with a particular release or commit - you have patched the crate to match the state of the git sources immediately after relicensing anyway (this is a particularly strong point) Simply packaging a snapshot from GitHub would be a good choice in this situation in the general case, but this conflicts with the general practice of only using crates.io crates as primary sources for Rust library packages. Upstream should certainly be urged to cut a new release with the new license as soon as possible; you’ve done this in https://github.com/lifthrasiir/hexf/pull/27. Overall, this is ugly, but appears acceptable, and is probably the best possible way to handle the situation until upstream makes a new release on crates.io. - The patch hexf-parse-fix-metadata.diff, combined with 0001-backport-upstream-commit-55d8ea4.patch, adds a dependency on libm; this is already upstreamed via https://github.com/lifthrasiir/hexf/pull/21, and upstream status is properly documented in a spec-file comment. - You patched in the missing 0BSD license text (not required by 0BSD, but desirable); this appears OK because there is no ambiguity in the exact text meant by 0BSD, and you have asked upstream to make the change in https://github.com/lifthrasiir/hexf/pull/27. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/hexf- parse-0.2.1/LICENSE 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/%license. The duplication appears to be harmless; if it is a problem, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm. ===== 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. The unreleased relicensing complicates this; I think the situation looks OK, as detailed in the comments at the beginning of this review. [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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2255554-rust- hexf-parse/licensecheck.txt The unreleased relicensing complicates this; I think the situation looks OK, as detailed in the comments at the beginning of this review. [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: [x]: 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- hexf-parse-devel , rust-hexf-parse+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. This is done in a way that appears acceptable; see the commentary at the beginning of this review. [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: [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-hexf-parse-devel-0.2.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-hexf-parse+default-devel-0.2.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-hexf-parse-0.2.1-1.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/tmpokt2wkyl')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rust-hexf-parse+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-hexf-parse-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation = 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 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-hexf-parse+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-hexf-parse-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lifthrasiir/hexf/raw/f43eda3/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3662a9adfe6feddb077f96dfad3cb30408540a2a3eae5a656b7ff4375e622be0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3662a9adfe6feddb077f96dfad3cb30408540a2a3eae5a656b7ff4375e622be0 https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/hexf-parse/0.2.1/download#/hexf-parse-0.2.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfa686283ad6dd069f105e5ab091b04c62850d3e4cf5d67debad1933f55023df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfa686283ad6dd069f105e5ab091b04c62850d3e4cf5d67debad1933f55023df Requires -------- rust-hexf-parse-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(libm/default) >= 0.2.2 with crate(libm/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo rust-hexf-parse+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(hexf-parse) Provides -------- rust-hexf-parse-devel: crate(hexf-parse) rust-hexf-parse-devel rust-hexf-parse+default-devel: crate(hexf-parse/default) rust-hexf-parse+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2255554 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, C/C++, Haskell, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Ocaml 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=2255554 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202255554%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
