Bug 2280325

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117670297

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7442649
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2280325-rust-camellia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07442649-rust-camellia/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.

From src/camellia.rs:

  //
  // Based on src/lib/block/camellia/camellia.cpp from https://github.com/randombit/botan
  // Revision: 32bf9784bd6ee29cb3ffa173f0a734e9edce2dac
  //
  
  /*
   * Camellia
   * (C) 2012,2020 Jack Lloyd
   *
   * Botan is released under the Simplified BSD License (see license.txt)
   */

The source file is here: https://github.com/randombit/botan/blob/master/src/lib/block/camellia/camellia.cpp

A current version of Botan’s license is here: https://github.com/randombit/botan/blob/master/license.txt

It seems like there is a possibility that this is derived from the implementation in Botan to a sufficient extent that it might need to include the license text from Botan and have a license of (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND BSD-2-Clause. What do you think?

Good catch! Looking at the source code for both this crate and the Camellia implementation in Botan, the Rust code here looks quite different from the C++ code from botan, other than the constants from the definition of the cipher and the implementation of the math for the cipher itself. Everything else is different - for example, it uses Rust metaprogramming techniques that aren't even available in C++ to generate concrete implementations for Camellia128, Camellia192, and Camellia256 at compile-time.

If src/camellia.rs were 1:1 transpiled from C++ to Rust with a tool like like c2rust, an argument could be made that the original license still applies, but in this case, the implementation (other than the definition of the cipher itself, which Botan didn't invent either) is sufficiently different that the botan license doesn't apply - at least in my opinion.

Okay, I buy that! I didn’t take time to read through the implementation point-by-point, and I trust your evaluation.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

The spec file is almost exactly as generated by rust2rpm, except that the
Summary was revised for clarity:

-Summary:        Block cipher
+Summary:        Camellia block cipher

The revised summary actually matches the upstream Cargo.toml; rust2rpm tried to
remove the package and/or crate name from the summary. I agree that the
upstream summary is clearer in this case.


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/camellia-0.1.0/CHANGELOG.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  This is not a serious problem; if it should be fixed, then it should be fixed
  in rust2rpm.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 12 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/Downloads/review/2280325-rust-camellia/licensecheck.txt

     See discussion in the review:

     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280325#c3
     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280325#c4

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo/registry,
     /usr/share/cargo, /usr

     This diagnostic is a fedora-review bug.

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share,
     /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr/share/cargo, /usr

     This diagnostic is a fedora-review bug.

[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.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[-]: 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-
     camellia-devel , rust-camellia+default-devel , rust-camellia+zeroize-
     devel
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (tests pass)

[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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117670297

[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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-camellia-devel-0.1.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-camellia+default-devel-0.1.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-camellia+zeroize-devel-0.1.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          rust-camellia-0.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
=========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==========================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpyis4n3oe')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

rust-camellia+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-camellia+zeroize-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
===================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =====================================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 3

rust-camellia+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-camellia+zeroize-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/camellia/0.1.0/download#/camellia-0.1.0.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3264e2574e9ef2b53ce6f536dea83a69ac0bc600b762d1523ff83fe07230ce30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3264e2574e9ef2b53ce6f536dea83a69ac0bc600b762d1523ff83fe07230ce30


Requires
--------
rust-camellia-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(byteorder) >= 1.1.0 with crate(byteorder) < 2.0.0~)
    (crate(cipher/default) >= 0.4.2 with crate(cipher/default) < 0.5.0~)
    cargo
    rust

rust-camellia+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(camellia)

rust-camellia+zeroize-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(cipher/zeroize) >= 0.4.2 with crate(cipher/zeroize) < 0.5.0~)
    cargo
    crate(camellia)



Provides
--------
rust-camellia-devel:
    crate(camellia)
    rust-camellia-devel

rust-camellia+default-devel:
    crate(camellia/default)
    rust-camellia+default-devel

rust-camellia+zeroize-devel:
    crate(camellia/zeroize)
    rust-camellia+zeroize-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2280325 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Java, Perl, C/C++, Python, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Great - thank you for the review!

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

Imported and built:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8c589f8baf