Bug 2455091
| Summary: | Review Request: rust-read-fonts - Reading OpenType font files | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Parag Nemade <pnemade> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ben Beasley <code> | ||||
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | code, package-review | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | AutomationTriaged | ||||
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | code:
fedora-review?
|
||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| URL: | https://crates.io/crates/read-fonts | ||||||
| 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: | 2461078 | ||||||
| Bug Blocks: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Parag Nemade
2026-04-04 16:17:28 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=144037250 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The submission is slightly outdated compared to upstream; 0.38.0, where upstream is at 0.39.1. Unless you strictly require version 0.38 as a dependency for something you are planning to package, consider updating to the current release. When you update to 0.39 (now or later), be aware of the new agl feature (“Support for mapping glyph names <-> unicode via the Adobe glyph list”): https://diff.rs/read-fonts/0.38.0/0.39.1/Cargo.toml.orig. This feature relies on “code” (really, just a data table in Rust source form, data/generated/generated_agl.rs) generated from data/glyphlist.xt, the “Adobe Glyph List,” which is licensed BSD-3-Clause. This would seem to require the license expression in Cargo.toml to be patched from “MIT OR Apache-2.0” to “(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND BSD-3-Clause”. You might consider hiding experimental features that do not respect SemVer, at least until and unless something packaged actually requires them. In rust2rpm.toml, this could look something like: [features] hide = [ # Experimental features that don’t promise to respect SemVer "experimental_traverse", "ift", "spec_next", ] See the cautions about using features.hide vs. patching out features in the rust2rpm.toml man page. The codegen_test and scaler_test features don’t look like they are useful for external use, although there’s probably little harm in exposing them as metapackage. Please document why the tests are disabled, something like (in rust2rpm.toml): [tests] run = false comments = [ "Tests requires the font_test_data crate, not packaged", ] I do think it’s reasonable to want to avoid a rust-font_test_data package. On the other hand, it seems like it would be easy to package, and I didn’t see any obvious license issues at a glance, so maybe it’s worth adding it later and enabling the tests. Here’s the awkward part. Most of this crate is generated code, and according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#pregenerated-code, “It is required that the original source files from which the code was generated be included in the source package. Generally these files are part of the source archive supplied by upstream, but it may be necessary to fetch those files from an upstream source repository and include them in the source package as separate Source: entries.” The easiest way to satisfy this is probably to add an archive of the upstream git repository as an additional source: [[package.extra-sources]] number = 10 file = "https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/archive/read-fonts-v%{version}/fontation-read-fonts-v%{version}.tar.gz" comments = [ "Most of the crate is generated code.", "This archive contains the original sources.", "We must include these even though we do not use them to build binary RPMs.", "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#pregenerated-code", ] I took a quick look through this archive and it seemed like everything had acceptable licenses, but you should double-check it too. If you like, you could study the codegen pipeline (https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/blob/main/docs/codegen-tour.md, https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/blob/main/font-codegen/README.md), and just make an archive that contains the codegen inputs and codegen utilities, but it seems like this would be unpleasantly fussy, and the complete archive is big (~13M) but not *huge*. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/read- fonts-0.38.0/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - You might consider hiding features that don’t respect SemVer; see notes above. - If you disable the tests, you should add a comment explaining why; see notes above. - You must include the original source files for pre-generated code; see notes above. ===== 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", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 170 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2455091-rust-read-fonts/licensecheck.txt (See notes in the narrative discussion above about BSD-3-Clause portions in version 0.39, however.) [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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. The package compiles successfully. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Version 0.39.1 is available. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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=144667602 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are disabled to avoid packaging the font_test_data crate. This is acceptable, but should be documented in the spec file. [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]: 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. fonts: [!]: Run fc-query on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-read-fonts-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+default-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+experimental_traverse-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+ift-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+libm-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+serde-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+spec_next-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+std-devel-0.38.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts-0.38.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmps711j058')] checks: 32, packages: 11 11 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 62 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 10 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 57 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/read-fonts/0.38.0/download#/read-fonts-0.38.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 70eac20eeee8bd51247a0c2f349f657563fffd19d041cd12988cc2801ec2ebef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70eac20eeee8bd51247a0c2f349f657563fffd19d041cd12988cc2801ec2ebef Requires -------- rust-read-fonts-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bytemuck/default) >= 1.13.1 with crate(bytemuck/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(font-types/bytemuck) >= 0.11.1 with crate(font-types/bytemuck) < 0.12.0~) (crate(font-types/default) >= 0.11.1 with crate(font-types/default) < 0.12.0~) cargo rust rust-read-fonts+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+experimental_traverse-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+ift-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+libm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(core_maths/default) >= 0.1.0 with crate(core_maths/default) < 0.2.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(font-types/serde) >= 0.11.1 with crate(font-types/serde) < 0.12.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+spec_next-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(font-types/std) >= 0.11.1 with crate(font-types/std) < 0.12.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) Provides -------- rust-read-fonts-devel: crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts-devel rust-read-fonts+default-devel: crate(read-fonts/default) rust-read-fonts+default-devel rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel: crate(read-fonts/codegen_test) rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel rust-read-fonts+experimental_traverse-devel: crate(read-fonts/experimental_traverse) rust-read-fonts+experimental_traverse-devel rust-read-fonts+ift-devel: crate(read-fonts/ift) rust-read-fonts+ift-devel rust-read-fonts+libm-devel: crate(read-fonts/libm) rust-read-fonts+libm-devel rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel: crate(read-fonts/scaler_test) rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel rust-read-fonts+serde-devel: crate(read-fonts/serde) rust-read-fonts+serde-devel rust-read-fonts+spec_next-devel: crate(read-fonts/spec_next) rust-read-fonts+spec_next-devel rust-read-fonts+std-devel: crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+std-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2455091 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Java, PHP, C/C++, Python, R, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Thank you very much for detailed review comment. Here is updated package links. Please review again and suggest if anything more to be fixed. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-read-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10423716 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2455091-rust-read-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10423716-rust-read-fonts/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. Hmm, did you do a local test build? I get a lot of,
error[E0433]: cannot find module or crate `font_test_data` in this scope
--> src/array.rs:215:9
|
215 | use font_test_data::bebuffer::BeBuffer;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ use of unresolved module or unlinked crate `font_test_data`
|
= help: if you wanted to use a crate named `font_test_data`, use `cargo add font_test_data` to add it to your `Cargo.toml`
This is because the workspace dependency on font-test-data, https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/blob/d91a0b4daa16889d11e3f7d46b9fef00a787eacf/Cargo.toml#L44, is path-based (and doesn’t have a version), so the dev-dependency ends up totally removed in the normalized Cargo.toml. You’ll need to restore it manually when patching Cargo.toml, something like:
[dev-dependencies.font-test-data]
version = "0.6.2"
----
Note that the [[package.extra-sources]] section goes into rust2rpm.toml, not Cargo.toml. See the man page for rust2rpm.toml.
Can you please check again by downloading latest SRPM again? When I attempt local build on my rawhide machine, I am getting error: Failed build dependencies: (crate(rand/default) >= 0.8.5 with crate(rand/default) < 0.9.0~) is needed by rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc45.x86_64 Wrote: /home/test/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc45.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm how can I fix this? Are you trying to build it with something like "rpmbuild -ba"? You should use mock in general, and especially for packages in languages like Rust and Python that use generated BuildRequires. This works fine for me: $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc45.src.rpm So does this (in a directory with rust-read-fonts.spec, read-fonts-fix-metadata.diff, read-fonts-0.39.2.crate, and fontation-read-fonts-v0.39.2.tar.gz, but not necessarily a source RPM): $ fedpkg mockbuild -- --postinstall (The --postinstall is useful to make sure that all of the feature metapackages are actually installable.) In this case, grepping for "rand::" shows that the dev-dependency on "rand" is benchmark-only, and it can be patched out along with "criterion". We do have a rand-0.8 compat package, so it’s not really hurting anything as-is except making the build a little slower. I did send upstream a PR to update to the latest version of rand, https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/pull/1858. This doesn’t matter much here since we don’t need the rand dev-dependency anyway. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7) > Are you trying to build it with something like "rpmbuild -ba"? You should > use mock in general, and especially for packages in languages like Rust and > Python that use generated BuildRequires. This works fine for me: > > $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild > rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc45.src.rpm > > So does this (in a directory with rust-read-fonts.spec, > read-fonts-fix-metadata.diff, read-fonts-0.39.2.crate, and > fontation-read-fonts-v0.39.2.tar.gz, but not necessarily a source RPM): > > $ fedpkg mockbuild -- --postinstall > > (The --postinstall is useful to make sure that all of the feature > metapackages are actually installable.) Got it now. I did not check mock root.log output that compat rand package is getting pulled whereas on my rawhide system I installed normal rust-rand* packages and was trying to build it. Thanks. Here is updated package links. I removed now "rand" dev-dependency. Please review again and suggest if anything more to be fixed. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-read-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc44.src.rpm I think we are almost there, except for a license quibble. This review is based on your submission before you patched out the rand dev-dependency. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The original sources for generated code are correctly included in Source10. Everything here seems to be under a clear license that is acceptable in Fedora; see bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2461078 for license analysis of the test font data. A downstream metadata patch drops the criterion dev-dependency since it is benchmark-only. This is necessary, correct, and well-documented. Experimental and preview features that may break SemVer are hidden until and unless something actually needs them, a good practice. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/read- fonts-0.39.2/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions - The new agl feature (“Support for mapping glyph names <-> unicode via the Adobe glyph list”) relies on “code” (really, just a data table in Rust source form, data/generated/generated_agl.rs) generated from data/glyphlist.txt, the “Adobe Glyph List,” which is licensed BSD-3-Clause. This would seem to require the license expression in Cargo.toml to be patched from “MIT OR Apache-2.0” to “(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND BSD-3-Clause”. I suggested this change upstream in https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/pull/1859. I think you need to patch the license expression downstream in your cargo metadata patch, adding a comment to package.cargo-toml-patch-comments linking the upstream PR. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 182 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2455091-rust-read- fonts/licensecheck.txt The new agl feature (“Support for mapping glyph names <-> unicode via the Adobe glyph list”) relies on “code” (really, just a data table in Rust source form, data/generated/generated_agl.rs) generated from data/glyphlist.xt, the “Adobe Glyph List,” which is licensed BSD-3-Clause. This would seem to require the license expression in Cargo.toml to be patched from “MIT OR Apache-2.0” to “(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND BSD-3-Clause”. [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. BSD-3-Clause portion is not documented. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [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: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source10: https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/archive/read- fonts-v0.39.2/fontation-read-fonts-v0.39.2.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ OK: not sure why fedora-review had trouble, but “spectool -g” worked fine [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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=145395108 [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]: 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]: 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. fonts: [!]: Run fc-query on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Not applicable; this does not actually install any fonts. [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Not applicable; this does not actually install any fonts. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-read-fonts-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+default-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+agl-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+libm-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+serde-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+std-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwcajwi2d')] checks: 32, packages: 9 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 50 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 8 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 45 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/read-fonts/0.39.2/download#/read-fonts-0.39.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c4ed38b89c2c77ff968c524145ad65fb010f38af5c7a224b53b81d47ac2daa81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c4ed38b89c2c77ff968c524145ad65fb010f38af5c7a224b53b81d47ac2daa81 Requires -------- rust-read-fonts-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bytemuck/default) >= 1.13.1 with crate(bytemuck/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(font-types/bytemuck) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/bytemuck) < 0.12.0~) (crate(font-types/default) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/default) < 0.12.0~) cargo rust rust-read-fonts+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+agl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+libm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(core_maths/default) >= 0.1.0 with crate(core_maths/default) < 0.2.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(font-types/serde) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/serde) < 0.12.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(font-types/std) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/std) < 0.12.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) Provides -------- rust-read-fonts-devel: crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts-devel rust-read-fonts+default-devel: crate(read-fonts/default) rust-read-fonts+default-devel rust-read-fonts+agl-devel: crate(read-fonts/agl) rust-read-fonts+agl-devel rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel: crate(read-fonts/codegen_test) rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel rust-read-fonts+libm-devel: crate(read-fonts/libm) rust-read-fonts+libm-devel rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel: crate(read-fonts/scaler_test) rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel rust-read-fonts+serde-devel: crate(read-fonts/serde) rust-read-fonts+serde-devel rust-read-fonts+std-devel: crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+std-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2455091 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, R, Haskell, Python, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Created attachment 2140900 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10423716 to 10452577
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10452577 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2455091-rust-read-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10452577-rust-read-fonts/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. |