https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329101 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Marc-Andre Lureau from comment #4) > (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > > Please don't use NEEDINFO for non-urgent stuff like this. I'll take the > > review. > > needinfo != urgency. It might be this way inside Red Hat, but on the blue side of things NEEDINFO is almost exclusively used for "urgent, respond soon, or we will take away your rights and packages" kind of things. > You could ask the same questions for any open source project. Yes, and I *do* ask this question for any project that has substantial test input data like this one. > At some point you need to trust someone or conduct your own investigations. That is the responsibility of the submitter, not the reviewer, though. If you can't commit to verifying that your package is OK for Fedora, then you shouldn't submit it for review. > https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-license-and- > license-file-fields > With the exact same license (MIT OR Apache-2.0): > > "If a package is using a nonstandard license, then the license-file field > may be specified in lieu of the license field." > > they are standard licenses though. > > What would you suggest to do? to include the license with the crate? That is > not enforced in crates.io, but I suppose the maintainer is ok with that... It looks like you misunderstood me. The Cargo.toml metadata is correct. The problem is that the published crate does not include the license texts. > Can we solve this at the Fedora package level in the meantime? The usual solution would be to temporarily include the texts from upstream git as additional Source files, and file an issue with upstream so that the files are included in the next release. Note that I have already done this previously for the "picky" project, here: https://github.com/Devolutions/picky-rs/issues/230 and submitted a pull request to fix the problem, here: https://github.com/Devolutions/picky-rs/pull/232 It looks like this was just missed to apply to the new picky-test-data crate when it was split off. I filed another issue: https://github.com/Devolutions/picky-rs/issues/332 -- 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=2329101 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202329101%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
