https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
Bug ID: 2214384 Summary: Review Request: rust-matchit - Blazing fast URL router Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decathorpe@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-matchit.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-matchit-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: A blazing fast URL router.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102073175
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |h-k-81@hotmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |h-k-81@hotmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Taking this review
General comments:
- Package was generated with rust2rpm and some changes were made - Tests were deactivated because of a missing dependency --> should be OK but packaging dependency and reactivating tests is preffered
Issues:
- Feature `__test_helpers` is packaged with the crate. I don't think this should be packaged. The feature is only meant to be used internally by the crate (from my understanding). - The code itself is licensed under MIT but the author wrote "A lot of the code in this package was based on Julien Schmidt's httprouter." and included the license file (BSD-3-Clause) of `httprouter` in the crate. Shouldn't the package also have both licenses defined (MIT and BSD-3-Clause)?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.httprouter is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== 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. [!]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-matchit/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]: 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. [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- matchit-devel , rust-matchit+default-devel , rust- matchit+__test_helpers-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-matchit-devel-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-matchit+default-devel-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm rust-matchit-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp8963_np9')] checks: 31, packages: 4
rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-matchit+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 3
rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-matchit+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/matchit/0.7.0/download#/matchit-0.7.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b87248edafb776e59e6ee64a79086f65890d3510f2c656c000bf2a7e8a0aea40 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b87248edafb776e59e6ee64a79086f65890d3510f2c656c000bf2a7e8a0aea40
Requires -------- rust-matchit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo
rust-matchit+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(matchit)
rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(matchit)
Provides -------- rust-matchit-devel: crate(matchit) rust-matchit-devel
rust-matchit+default-devel: crate(matchit/default) rust-matchit+default-devel
rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel: crate(matchit/__test_helpers) rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-matchit --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, Java, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Python, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to blinxen from comment #2)
Taking this review
Thanks for taking a look!
General comments:
- Package was generated with rust2rpm and some changes were made
- Tests were deactivated because of a missing dependency --> should be OK
but packaging dependency and reactivating tests is preffered
In this case, I'd really rather not. Packaging pre-releases is painful.
Issues:
- Feature `__test_helpers` is packaged with the crate. I don't think this
should be packaged. The feature is only meant to be used internally by the crate (from my understanding).
Good catch, I will update the spec to remove this feature subpackage.
- The code itself is licensed under MIT but the author wrote "A lot of the
code in this package was based on Julien Schmidt's httprouter." and included the license file (BSD-3-Clause) of `httprouter` in the crate. Shouldn't the package also have both licenses defined (MIT and BSD-3-Clause)?
Not sure how to handle this. The "httprouter" project is written entirely in Go ... So this crate would need to be a 100% rewrite since it can't even contain any of the original code, and I don't think licenses carry over for 100% rewrites.
I've uploaded updated files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
--- Comment #4 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com ---
In this case, I'd really rather not. Packaging pre-releases is painful.
Understandable
So this crate would need to be a 100% rewrite since it can't even contain any of the original code, and I don't think licenses carry over for 100% rewrites.
According to the legal mailing list [1], the license also applies on rewrites.
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- I've filed an upstream ticket asking for clarification: https://github.com/ibraheemdev/matchit/issues/32
Files are updated to reflect the "MIT AND BSD-3-Clause" change.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #6 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- Looks good now to me!
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Great, thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-matchit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214384
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |rust-matchit-0.7.0-1.fc39 Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-07-02 17:49:51
--- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-03a79847a4
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com