Bug 2461078

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=144732215

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10359122
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2461078-rust-font-test-data/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10359122-rust-font-test-data/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 file test_data/rebuild.sh has a /usr/bin/env shebang and generates an unwanted dependency on bash. Try something like this in rust2rpm.toml:

[scripts.prep]
pre = [
    """\
# Do not generate a dependency on the bash shell
chmod a-x test_data/rebuild.sh
# Remove the shebang because we unset the execute bit and because it uses env,
# https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines.
sed -r -i '1{/^#!/d}' test_data/rebuild.sh\
""",
]

Upstream has assigned an “overall” license of (MIT OR Apache-2.0), but this does not account for all of the licenses of test data fonts, and we must do so: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/identify/.

Fortunately, test_data/README.md does attempt to account for all of these licenses. Since it looks thorough, I haven’t attempted to second-guess this accounting, but I spot-checked and didn’t find any obvious gaps or errors. I think we can safely take test_data/README.md at face value.

Try something like this, in rust2rpm.toml:

[package]
cargo-toml-patch-comments = [
    """\
Add OFL-1.1, Apache-2.0 and Unicode-3.0 terms to the SPDX license expression to \
account for fonts in test_data/; see test_data/README.md for an accounting of \
which licenses apply to which fonts.\
""",
]

Then, using “rust2rpm -p”, change the line

  license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

to

  license = "(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Apache-2.0 AND OFL-1.1 AND Unicode-3.0"

Otherwise, this looks sensible.

While https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ generally prohibits packaging fonts bundled in other packages, I think this package is fine because the fonts are to be used solely as binary test data files.

Thank you for your detailed help.

Here is updated package links

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-font-test-data.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-font-test-data-0.6.2-1.fc44.src.rpm

Created attachment 2139425 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10359122 to 10423595

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10423595
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2461078-rust-font-test-data/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10423595-rust-font-test-data/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.

I think this is fine now. Thanks!

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
  (should happen automatically)

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

- track package in koschei for all built branches
  (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)


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

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

The spec file is generated with rust2rpm, simplifiying the review.


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/font-test-
  data-0.6.2/LICENSE-APACHE
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

  OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions.


===== 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",
     "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License", "SIL Open Font License 1.1",
     "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 206 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/fedora/review/20260506/2461078-rust-font-test-
     data/licensecheck.txt

     License field is sensibly patched to account for licenses of test data
     fonts, as discussed in
     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2461078#c3.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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 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:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files

     It’s my opinion that this is acceptable because the fonts are intended
     strictly for use as test data for font-related software. They are not used
     for text rendering and will not be compiled into binaries or shipped with
     other packages.

[-]: 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-
     font-test-data-devel , rust-font-test-data+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.

     (there are no tests)

[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     (there are not actually any tests)

[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-font-test-data-devel-0.6.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          rust-font-test-data+default-devel-0.6.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          rust-font-test-data-0.6.2-1.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/tmptj0shjmt')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rust-font-test-data+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', 'Summary(en_US) fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', '%description -l en_US fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data.src: E: spelling-error ('fontations', 'Summary(en_US) fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data.src: E: spelling-error ('fontations', '%description -l en_US fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', 'Summary(en_US) fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', '%description -l en_US fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 2

rust-font-test-data+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', 'Summary(en_US) fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', '%description -l en_US fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', 'Summary(en_US) fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
rust-font-test-data-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontations', '%description -l en_US fontations -> confrontations, fomentation, flotations')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/font-test-data/0.6.2/download#/font-test-data-0.6.2.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b70b736e0168006b99d050128d7cfc2d4d67fd5e710080af6c9378a229b9096e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b70b736e0168006b99d050128d7cfc2d4d67fd5e710080af6c9378a229b9096e


Requires
--------
rust-font-test-data-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (crate(font-types/default) >= 0.11.1 with crate(font-types/default) < 0.12.0~)
    cargo
    rust

rust-font-test-data+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(font-test-data)



Provides
--------
rust-font-test-data-devel:
    crate(font-test-data)
    rust-font-test-data-devel

rust-font-test-data+default-devel:
    crate(font-test-data/default)
    rust-font-test-data+default-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2461078
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Python, R, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-font-test-data
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

FEDORA-2026-b6edf2c39c (rust-font-test-data-0.6.2-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b6edf2c39c

FEDORA-2026-b6edf2c39c (rust-font-test-data-0.6.2-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-0f8c36fe2c (rust-font-test-data-0.6.2-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0f8c36fe2c

FEDORA-2026-0f8c36fe2c has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-0f8c36fe2c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0f8c36fe2c

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