https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332596 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The packaging looks good, but the crate contains two HTML files with license issues. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. I noted the following differences: - The tests are disabled to avoid a dev-dependency on speculate, which is not packaged. This justification is documented in the spec file. I confirmed that all or nearly all tests do require speculate, and I also noted that speculate is likely unmaintained upstream. The last release on crates.io, https://crates.io/crates/speculate, was nearly six years ago. I agree that it is reasonable to skip packaging rust-speculate, *especially* given its maintenance status. - A LICENSE file, missing from the crate, is patched in as an additional source. This is done correctly and appropriately documented with upstream status, and the LICENSE file is taken from an upstream commit immediately following the 0.6.0 release, so we can be confident that its text is correct. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/select-0.6.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: this is due to a reasonable design decision in rust2rpm, and is not a serious problem. - The test file tests/fixtures/struct.Vec.html appears to be taken from an old copy of the Rust standard library’s documentation. According to https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/licenses, this means it is under the same (MIT AND Apache-2.0) license as Rust itself. These are allowable in Fedora, but not covered by the stated License. This file should at least be excluded from the binary RPMs so that the claimed "MIT" license is correct. Technically, the original MIT and Apache-2.0 license texts should also be included. - The example file examples/stackoverflow.html appears to be a list of the highest-voted Rust questions on StackOverflow. This is much more problematic. While https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing covers *user-submitted* content on StackOverflow, the HTML source itself is most likely proprietary; see https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#licensing. I think it will be necessary to filter out this example file (and ideally tests/fixtures/struct.Vec.html while you’re at it) and upload a modified “clean” crate to the lookaside cache in order to deal with these licensing issues. It would be nice to point out the problem upstream while you’re at it. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. The overall License is correct for the source code, but two HTML files have license issues. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2332596-rust- select/licensecheck.txt The overall License is correct for the source code, but two HTML files have license issues. [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. License file is patched in, correctly. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- select-devel , rust-select+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. Missing test dependency, with reasonable justification. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. License file is patched in, correctly. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Missing test dependency, with reasonable justification. [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-select-devel-0.6.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-select+default-devel-0.6.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-select-0.6.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp2zh0_i02')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-select+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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-select+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/utkarshkukreti/select.rs/raw/12883c0/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67b49c34187e141e99fddb402a8cced4e50de91ff2b8f471dc46df7dd3b4341e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67b49c34187e141e99fddb402a8cced4e50de91ff2b8f471dc46df7dd3b4341e https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/select/0.6.0/download#/select-0.6.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6f9da09dc3f4dfdb6374cbffff7a2cffcec316874d4429899eefdc97b3b94dcd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f9da09dc3f4dfdb6374cbffff7a2cffcec316874d4429899eefdc97b3b94dcd Requires -------- rust-select-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bit-set/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(bit-set/default) < 0.6.0~) (crate(html5ever/default) >= 0.26.0 with crate(html5ever/default) < 0.27.0~) (crate(markup5ever_rcdom/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(markup5ever_rcdom/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo rust-select+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(select) Provides -------- rust-select-devel: crate(select) rust-select-devel rust-select+default-devel: crate(select/default) rust-select+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2332596 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, R, Perl, Python 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=2332596 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202332596%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
