[Bug 2181022] New: Review Request: rust-device_tree - Reads and parses Linux device tree images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
Bug ID: 2181022 Summary: Review Request: rust-device_tree - Reads and parses Linux device tree images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora.dm0@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-device_tree.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-device_tree-1.1.0-1... Description: Reads and parses Linux device tree images. Fedora Account System Username: dm0
This is a build dependency of Firecracker. The spec is automatically generated. The upstream crate is missing license files but hasn't had commits in five years.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/de | |vice_tree
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5696232 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Package looks good, with only one problem: There's no license text included with published sources, but the MIT license requires this.
There's also no license text in the upstream project: https://github.com/mbr/device_tree-rs
I already posted more details here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181020#c2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #3 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- I noted in the original comment that the project hasn't been active for five years. Is it enough to just submit a bug about the license? Should the SRPM add the MIT license file itself if upstream doesn't respond?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This is unfortunate, but it doesn't absolve us from abiding by the projects (intended?) license terms.
Since the project looks abandoned, the "best effort" solution that would let us move forward is probably - submitting a PR to the project to add the missing license file, and - include the file from the PR in the Fedora package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #5 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- The actual use of this crate just seems to be for running tests on aarch64, so another option could be to skip the tests and drop it if that's easier. I can try a PR first, though.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Yes, if this crate is only needed to run some tests, dropping it and the tests that require it would be another valid option.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #7 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- Looking a bit closer at this, it seems the version of this crate on crates.io was never pushed to a Git repo. It is generating a bunch of deprecation warnings, too. Given these issues, I think I'd prefer to drop it. I added this patch to disable building its two tests, so if this looks okay, we can close this request: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/blob/616ea4e89c89ed937204000e18cd10...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This is not doing what you think it is:
`#[cfg(not(test))]`
This means "include this code only if we're not building tests" (i.e. the code will not end up in test binaries, but in the actual library).
You need to remove the tests entirely. I don't think there's something like an `#[cfg(false)]` attribute.
Other than that, yes, I agree, this crate looks fishy, and dropping it is probably wise. Feel free to close this ticket as CLOSED/NOTABUG.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
fedora.dm0@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-27 16:48:40
--- Comment #9 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- I used not(test) because the functions are in a #[test] module, so I think it's an impossible condition (as close as I could get to #[cfg(false)]).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181022
--- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Ah, that's true ... this situation just leads to code that's "unreachable" by the compiler:
#[cfg(test)] mod tests { #[cfg(not(test))] fn test() {} }
It's a bit of a hack though :)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com