Bug 2419808

Summary:	Review Request: rust-crc32-v2 - Port of the CRC-32 algorithm to Rust
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Peter Robinson <pbrobinson>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Fabio Valentini <decathorpe>
Status:	ASSIGNED ---	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	decathorpe, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	AutomationTriaged
Target Release:	---	Flags:	decathorpe: fedora-review?
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
URL:	https://crates.io/crates/crc32-v2
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	---
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:		Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	2323264

Description Peter Robinson 2025-12-07 21:44:48 UTC

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-crc32-v2.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-crc32-v2-0.0.5-1.fc43.src.rpm

Description:
Port of the CRC-32 algorithm to Rust

FAS: pbrobinson

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139808691

Fails with s390x

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Peter Robinson 2025-12-07 21:46:39 UTC

> Fails with s390x

Tests fail with s390x

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-12-07 21:47:57 UTC

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9883774
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419808-rust-crc32-v2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09883774-rust-crc32-v2/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.

Comment 3 Fabio Valentini 2026-01-09 10:51:24 UTC

> Tests fail with s390x

Can you report this upstream please?

Alternatively: I am wondering why binwalk even uses this crate. There's no trail in the commit log for *why* it was chosen, it's just added in the initial import of the Rust rewrite.

The crc32fast crate has almost 1000x (!) more downloads from crates.io. Maybe binwalk can switch to that one?

Comment 4 Peter Robinson 2026-01-15 12:19:36 UTC

> Alternatively: I am wondering why binwalk even uses this crate. There's no
> trail in the commit log for *why* it was chosen, it's just added in the
> initial import of the Rust rewrite.
y 
I'm not really involved in the upstream so I'm not able to answer that. I took on the Fedora maintainership as it's something I use in the IoT ecosystem in Fedora.

> The crc32fast crate has almost 1000x (!) more downloads from crates.io.
> Maybe binwalk can switch to that one?

Again being a consumer of binwalk I am not the person to make that arguement upstream, would appreciate if you took that discussion upstream as you're by far the expert in the details.

Comment 5 Fabio Valentini 2026-01-15 20:57:41 UTC

You are the binwalk package maintainer, you are better positioned to approach the upstream project than I am.

I made the suggestion to possibly switch to crc32fast because it would be *less work* to ask binwalk upstream about this than dealing with the test/build failures in a library that is not very widely used and not yet packaged for Fedora.

If you want to continue with this review, then you will still need to make sure that it builds (and to investigate / report / fix test failures - within reason). I can't approve a package that doesn't build.