Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-opml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-opml-1.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: OPML parser for Rust. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
- Include examples/ in %doc? - There is a weird tests/spec_samples/LICENSE file with: © Copyright 2000 UserLand Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved. © Copyright 2006-2007 Scripting News, Inc. All Rights Reserved. UserLand Software, Inc. and Scripting News, Inc. are refererred to in the following as "the Companies." This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and these paragraphs are included on all such copies and derivative works. This document may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Companies or other organizations. Further, while these copyright restrictions apply to the written OPML specification, no claim of ownership is made by the Companies to the format it describes. Any party may, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, implement this format without royalty or license fee to the Companies. The limited permissions granted herein are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Companies or their successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE COMPANIES DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. I don't know what license it is. Seems common on rfc like https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec21.html I've sent a mail to legal to weight on this. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6HN5VJKQU24ZXNUQ6E4LKZRH4AXNGAK7/ - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Good catch! Thanks for submitting the email for the legal list. Since the files under "tests/spec_samples/" are only used for integration tests, it would be easy to exclude them from built binary packages and only use them for the test suite. If it turns out it is not a permissible license for that purpose alone either, it should be easy to create a "clean" source tarball without those files, and just don't run the integration tests that need them.
Looks like there's no conclusions on the legal list, but most people seemed to think that this license might not be acceptable. Should I create "clean" source tarballs for this package instead, which don't contain those files? Or do you think it would be enough to remove them during the build so that they are not shipped?
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Should I create "clean" source tarballs for this package instead, which > don't contain those files? > Or do you think it would be enough to remove them during the build so that > they are not shipped? IANAL, but given that we ship the source RPMs as well (in *-sources repos), removing during build might not be enough for the "not shipping" part. Cleaning the tarballs is the safe option.
Created attachment 1801536 [details] Script to generate stripped crate I threw together a quick shell script to fetch and clean the opml crate from crates.io. It queries the specfile for current version, then fetches the crate from the CDN and removes the relevant files. At the end, it outputs `opml-%{version}-stripped.crate`, which should be suitable for inclusion as Source0. Feel free to add this to the spec as additional Source file.
(In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #4) > IANAL, but given that we ship the source RPMs as well (in *-sources repos), > removing during build might not be enough for the "not shipping" part. > Cleaning the tarballs is the safe option. That is a good argument. I have created a similar script that uses cargo to repackage the crate properly, which should also make sure no "vital" files are removed accidentally. I also updated the package to use the latest version 1.1.1, which fixes the missing license files compared to version 1.1.0. Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-opml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-opml-1.1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #6) > I have created a similar script that uses cargo to repackage the crate > properly, which should also make sure no "vital" files are removed > accidentally. Fair enough, although I have one problem with it's current behaviour – after the script is run, it produces the file of the same name as the original crate. Two problems with that: 1. If you forget to run the gen_clean_tarball.sh, no-one will notice unless you explicitly check the content; then we are back to accidentally shipping the (arguably) non-free stuff. 2. When you do run the script, the hash of the original and the modified file will differ, and fedora-review (and I suspect that other diligent enough linters) will complain about it. Nothing that couldn't be waived, but still. I would strongly prefer if you could rename the re-packaged crate in the cleaning script (`opml-%{version}-stripped.crate` or something like that), and use `Source: %{name}-%{version}-stripped.crate` in the specfile (no `%{crates_source}`). That way you have to go through the script to get a new release tarball, and you are explicit in stating that we do not ship the crate directly from the upstream, but deliberately making changes to it.
> I would strongly prefer if you could rename the re-packaged crate in the cleaning script. Good point, done. Same links.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [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 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: 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- opml-devel , rust-opml+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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-opml-devel-1.1.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-opml+default-devel-1.1.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rust-opml-1.1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm rust-opml-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/opml HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-opml-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/opml-1.1.1/.cargo-checksum.json rust-opml+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opml -> opal, op ml, op-ml rust-opml+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/opml HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-opml+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-opml.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/opml HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-opml.src: W: strange-permission gen_clean_tarball.sh 755 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- rust-opml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(regex/default) >= 1.3.0 with crate(regex/default) < 2.0.0~) (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~) (crate(strong-xml/default) >= 0.6.2 with crate(strong-xml/default) < 0.7.0~) (crate(thiserror/default) >= 1.0.24 with crate(thiserror/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-opml+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(opml) Provides -------- rust-opml-devel: crate(opml) rust-opml-devel rust-opml+default-devel: crate(opml/default) rust-opml+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1965823 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, R, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, Java, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35819 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35820
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-opml
FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62501907b8
FEDORA-2021-0399e40aa0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-62501907b8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.