Bug 2496893

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im-0.20.6-1.fc45.src.rpm

Renamed to flare-im as there's an existing "flare" package in Fedora (a game).

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10679000
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496893-flare/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10679000-flare/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flare
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Created attachment 2147581 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10679000 to 10679057

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10679057
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496893-flare/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10679057-flare-im/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im-0.20.6-2.fc45.src.rpm

- include cargo-vendor.txt in license tag
- add explicit build dependency on gettext
- use cargo_prep macro as prescribed in Rust packaging guidelines

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10681807
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496893-flare-im/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10681807-flare-im/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

> %description
> Flare is an unofficial app that lets you chat with your friends on Signal from
> Linux.
Please add some meat to this. How does it relate to the official app?
Is it at feature parity? How is stability?

> cat %{S:2} >> .cargo/config.toml
'cp %{S:2} .cargo/config.toml' ?

Vendored sources are used. The guidelines say that this SHOULD NOT be done,
but in this case it's reasonable. Too many crates would need to be packaged
otherwise.

The vendor script doesn't work for me.
'vendor/{winapi,windows}*/lib/*.{a,lib}' doesn't match anything. Not sure
how that happened.

+ package name is OK
  (flare conflicts, flare-im is reasonable.
   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_non_crate_rust_projects
   seems to apply the best here, so "rust-" prefix should be used.)
- not the latest version. 0.21 is out. Please update.
+ license is specified correctly (it's autogenerated, so I hope it's OK ;))
+ license is acceptable for Fedora
  (AGPL-3.0-or-later is probably the strictest, but that is still allowed.)
+ standard Rust packaging is used
+ BR look reasonable, P/R are autogenerated
+ package builds fine in mock
+ minimal %check is present. The required check for the desktop file is done.

rpmlint:
> flare-im.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flare
OK :(

> flare-im.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: flare-0.20.6-vendor.tar.bz2
That is expected.

> flare-im.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/flare.mo
> flare-im.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant/LC_MESSAGES/flare.mo
>  2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.1 s 
No idea what that means. I have some messages in that directory,
e.g. from dnf5. So maybe rpmlint is not up to date on locale names?

flare-engine has /usr/bin/flare. Either rename the binary (to flare-im?)
or add Conflicts.

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
> > %description
> > Flare is an unofficial app that lets you chat with your friends on Signal from
> > Linux.
> Please add some meat to this. How does it relate to the official app?
> Is it at feature parity? How is stability?
> 
> > cat %{S:2} >> .cargo/config.toml
> 'cp %{S:2} .cargo/config.toml' ?

Changed.

> Vendored sources are used. The guidelines say that this SHOULD NOT be done,
> but in this case it's reasonable. Too many crates would need to be packaged
> otherwise.

Working on that in parallel at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rathann/flare/ .

> The vendor script doesn't work for me.
> 'vendor/{winapi,windows}*/lib/*.{a,lib}' doesn't match anything. Not sure
> how that happened.

Fixed.

> + package name is OK
>   (flare conflicts, flare-im is reasonable.
>   
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/
> #_non_crate_rust_projects
>    seems to apply the best here, so "rust-" prefix should be used.)

Not really. Non-crate.io applications must be named according to generic naming guidelines,
"...  i.e. they MUST NOT use a rust- prefix for the source package name."
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_package_naming_2

> - not the latest version. 0.21 is out. Please update.

Updated to 0.22.0.

[...]
> rpmlint:
> > flare-im.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flare
> OK :(
> 
> > flare-im.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: flare-0.20.6-vendor.tar.bz2
> That is expected.
> 
> > flare-im.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hans/LC_MESSAGES/flare.mo
> > flare-im.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant/LC_MESSAGES/flare.mo
> >  2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.1 s 
> No idea what that means. I have some messages in that directory,
> e.g. from dnf5. So maybe rpmlint is not up to date on locale names?

No, this is correct. glibc has no notion of these locales. Fixed.

> flare-engine has /usr/bin/flare. Either rename the binary (to flare-im?)
> or add Conflicts.

Added Conflicts.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im-0.22.0-2.fc45.src.rpm

> Working on that in parallel at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rathann/flare/ .

Nice!

>> + package name is OK
>>   (flare conflicts, flare-im is reasonable.
>>   
>>< https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/
>> #_non_crate_rust_projects
>>    seems to apply the best here, so "rust-" prefix should be used.)
> Not really. Non-crate.io applications must be named according to generic naming guidelines,
Yeah, that's what I meant. I lost "not" in the last sentence, but the
whole rest of the text was to justify that the name is appropriate.

> Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/flare-im/flare-im.spec
That still says 0.20.6 :(  But the srpm has the update version, so I'm reviewing that.


+ package name is OK
+ latest version (0.22.0)
+ license is specified correctly (it's autogenerated, so I hope it's OK ;))
+ license is acceptable for Fedora
  (AGPL-3.0-or-later is probably the strictest, but that is still allowed.)
+ standard Rust packaging is used
+ BR look reasonable, P/R are autogenerated
+ package builds fine in mock
+ minimal %check is present. The required check for the desktop file is done.

Package is APPROVED.

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

FEDORA-2026-8833fc405b (flare-im-0.22.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8833fc405b

FEDORA-2026-8833fc405b (flare-im-0.22.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

I see at least one issue here:

This package bundles the "fiat-crypto" crate, which implements some elliptic-curve cryptography that is not allowed to be shipped by fedora (the p434 curve). This needs to be stripped out from the -vendor tarball.

Take a look at the rust-fiat-crypto package for that needs to be stripped:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fiat-crypto/blob/rawhide/f/gen_clean_tarball.sh

Legal mailing list reference:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/FBZU2X7ZKTK2BVZKBHFUCI44SMY4UQCE/

Acceptable ECC implementations are documented here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/misc/#_elliptic_curve_cryptography_ecc

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #13)
> I see at least one issue here:
> 
> This package bundles the "fiat-crypto" crate, which implements some
> elliptic-curve cryptography that is not allowed to be shipped by fedora (the
> p434 curve). This needs to be stripped out from the -vendor tarball.

Done, thanks for catching it.