Bug 2395053

koji scratch build for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137109332

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9554880
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2395053-rust-serde_core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09554880-rust-serde_core/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 package is APPROVED, with some discussion below.

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

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

The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. I noted a few
modifications.

- The tests are disabled, with the comment that they can only be compiled
  in-tree. This is a reasonable justification, and at a glance, the doctests
  would appear to have a circular dependency on the serde crate.

    -%bcond check 1
    +# * tests can only be compiled in-tree
    +%bcond check 0

- The version is not quite the latest (1.0.221 instead of 1.0.225). This is not
  worrisome. I am sure you will update the serde packages to the latest
  versions eventually.

- The Summary is shortened. This was not quite necessary to fit in 80
  characters, as the upstream description is 76 characters, but the shortened
  Summary is still reasonable and useful.

    -Summary:        Serde traits only, with no support for derive -- use the serde crate instead
    +Summary:        Serde traits

- A patch drops the serde_derive dependency.
 
    +# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes
    +# * temporarily drop noop serde_derive dependency
    +Patch:          serde_core-fix-metadata.diff

  This is reasonably well-documented, but I don’t really understand from the
  description why the dependency needs to be dropped or what it means for it to
  be “noop.” A more descriptive comment would be nice.

Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/serde_core-1.0.221/LICENSE-APACHE
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files


===== 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",
     "*No copyright* MIT License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2395053-rust-
     serde_core/licensecheck.txt
[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]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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:
[-]: 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-
     serde_core-devel , rust-serde_core+default-devel , rust-
     serde_core+alloc-devel , rust-serde_core+rc-devel , rust-
     serde_core+result-devel , rust-serde_core+std-devel , rust-
     serde_core+unstable-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.

     Tests are disabled, with justification.

[!]: Latest version is packaged.

     I assume you have a plan.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

     The Cargo.toml patch would benefit from a clearer explanation.

[-]: 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=137170769

[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Tests are disabled, with 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-serde_core-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core+default-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core+alloc-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core+rc-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core+result-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core+std-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core+unstable-devel-1.0.221-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          rust-serde_core-1.0.221-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3dpne6bc')]
checks: 32, packages: 8

 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 43 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 7

 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 39 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/serde_core/1.0.221/download#/serde_core-1.0.221.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0c459bc0a14c840cb403fc14b148620de1e0778c96ecd6e0c8c3cacb6d8d00fe
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0c459bc0a14c840cb403fc14b148620de1e0778c96ecd6e0c8c3cacb6d8d00fe


Requires
--------
rust-serde_core-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    rust

rust-serde_core+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(serde_core)
    crate(serde_core/result)
    crate(serde_core/std)

rust-serde_core+alloc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(serde_core)

rust-serde_core+rc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(serde_core)

rust-serde_core+result-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(serde_core)

rust-serde_core+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(serde_core)

rust-serde_core+unstable-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(serde_core)



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

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

rust-serde_core+alloc-devel:
    crate(serde_core/alloc)
    rust-serde_core+alloc-devel

rust-serde_core+rc-devel:
    crate(serde_core/rc)
    rust-serde_core+rc-devel

rust-serde_core+result-devel:
    crate(serde_core/result)
    rust-serde_core+result-devel

rust-serde_core+std-devel:
    crate(serde_core/std)
    rust-serde_core+std-devel

rust-serde_core+unstable-devel:
    crate(serde_core/unstable)
    rust-serde_core+unstable-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2395053
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, Perl, Python, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you for the review!

> - The version is not quite the latest (1.0.221 instead of 1.0.225). This is
> not
>   worrisome. I am sure you will update the serde packages to the latest
>   versions eventually.

Yes - 1.0.221 was just the latest version when I submitted this for review.
It looks like this reorganization is still causing a lot of churn in serde upstream (and projects that depend on serde) so there are new releases being published quite frequently (more than daily).

> - The Summary is shortened. This was not quite necessary to fit in 80
>   characters, as the upstream description is 76 characters, but the shortened
>   Summary is still reasonable and useful.
> 
>     -Summary:        Serde traits only, with no support for derive -- use
> the serde crate instead
>     +Summary:        Serde traits

Yes, I don't think anything after "Serde traits" is suitable for a public-facing description.

> - A patch drops the serde_derive dependency.
>  
>     +# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes
>     +# * temporarily drop noop serde_derive dependency
>     +Patch:          serde_core-fix-metadata.diff
> 
>   This is reasonably well-documented, but I don’t really understand from the
>   description why the dependency needs to be dropped or what it means for it
> to
>   be “noop.” A more descriptive comment would be nice.

The dependency is a noop insofar as that it's only present for dependency resolution to force the same version for serde_core and serde_derive, but the dependency itself is actually disabled unconditionally being scoped with "cfg(any())".

Also, if I *didn't* temporarily drop it, I wouldn't have been able to prepare this package - since it depends on a version of serde_derive that is *after* the serde / serde_core split, which I couldn't have updated to without serde_core being packaged. :)

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

FEDORA-2025-994a5eb81c (rust-serde-1.0.225-1.fc44, rust-serde_core-1.0.225-1.fc44, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-994a5eb81c

FEDORA-2025-994a5eb81c (rust-serde-1.0.225-1.fc44, rust-serde_core-1.0.225-1.fc44, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.