Bug 2189985

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5852552
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189985-rust-erdtree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05852552-rust-erdtree/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

The license information from the %cargo_license_summary should be in the "-n %{crate}" subpackage, with a separate License tag.

For Rust packages, the License tag of the main package usually reflects the license of the crate. It doesn't make much of a difference for this package (since it only provides a binary but no library interface), but it will make it easier to re-apply these changes for version updates (and it's also in line with other Rust packages).

You also shouldn't "simplify" the license that much anymore ... according to latest guidance from Red Hat legal, these licenses:

# (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016
# Apache-2.0 OR MIT
# Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT
# MIT
# MIT OR Apache-2.0
# Unlicense OR MIT

Result in this license tag:

License: MIT AND Unicode-DFS-2016 AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Unlicense OR MIT)

(i.e. the only thing you can de-duplicate is reordered (A OR B) / (B OR A), and I tend to sort the rest of the AND clauses alphabetically for reproducibility)

[fedora-review-service-build]

I updated the SPEC + SRPM file and uploaded it to same place.

> For Rust packages, the License tag of the main package usually reflects the license of the crate.

Could you put this in your list of stuff that you want to add to the Rust Packaging Guidelines :D?

> You also shouldn't "simplify" the license that much anymore ... according to latest guidance from Red Hat legal, these licenses:

Thanks for the info! Do you have the relevant documentation at hand?

Created attachment 1961216 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5852552 to 5862465

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5862465
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189985-rust-erdtree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05862465-rust-erdtree/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

(In reply to blinxen from comment #3)
> [fedora-review-service-build]
> 
> I updated the SPEC + SRPM file and uploaded it to same place.

Thanks, I will take another look.

> > For Rust packages, the License tag of the main package usually reflects the license of the crate.
> 
> Could you put this in your list of stuff that you want to add to the Rust
> Packaging Guidelines :D?

Well, this isn't part of the Rust Packaging Guidelines - at least not any more. It was actually there, but was moved to the Legal docs:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_rust_packages

> > You also shouldn't "simplify" the license that much anymore ... according to latest guidance from Red Hat legal, these licenses:
> 
> Thanks for the info! Do you have the relevant documentation at hand?

Basically here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis
and these sections for when to use SPDX AND and OR:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_combined_disjunctive_and_conjunctive_license_expressions

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5862687
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189985-rust-erdtree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05862687-rust-erdtree/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

Looks good to me, thanks!

===

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide
- test suite is run and all unit tests pass
- latest version of the crate is packaged
- license matches upstream specification (MIT) and is acceptable for Fedora
- license tag for binary subpackage present and accurate
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- track package in koschei for all built branches

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-erdtree

FEDORA-2023-b5f0169087 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b5f0169087

FEDORA-2023-b5f0169087 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b5f0169087 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b5f0169087

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-b5f0169087 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.