Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/rustrpm/rust-cfonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/rustrpm/rust-cfonts-1.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: This is a silly little command line tool for sexy ANSI fonts in the console. Give your cli some love. Fedora Account System Username: alciregi Successful koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94784705
Two Quick Comments: It looks like you're adding a license file from upstream to the SRPM file, but then do nothing with it? You will probably want to do something like "cp -pav %{SOURCE1} ." at the end of %prep, and then use that file (i.e. replace the "# FIXME: no license file detected" warnings in both file lists - in the case of the subpackage for the actual binary, with `%license LICENSE`, and in the case of the "-devel" subpackage, with `%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE`. You will also need to determine the license of everything that's statically linked into your binaries. You can use the %cargo_license / %cargo_license_summary macros for this, i.e. adding something like this after %cargo_build: %cargo_license_summary %{cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies The first one prints a summary to the build log (which you can use for determining the License tag of the "-n %{crate}" subpackage), the second one writes a file into the builddir that contains a complete license breakdown for all statically linked components (which you can include with %license LICENSE.dependencies) in the subpackage for the binary, as well. You can take a look at rpm-sequoia for an example of how to handle this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rpm-sequoia/blob/rawhide/f/rust-rpm-sequoia.spec
Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/rustrpm/rust-cfonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/rustrpm/rust-cfonts-1.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Thank you. I hope it is ok.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5537301 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149953-rust-cfonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05537301-rust-cfonts/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.
Taking this review Some comments / issues with the package: - The upstream project does not include a license file in `Cargo.toml`. I can see that you add it manually but it would be nice if you could push the change to upstream. Maybe by specifying `license-file` [1]?. - The license path for the `devel` package is wrong. It should be `%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE`. - `rust2rpm` always adds the `%doc` directive to `devel` packages. I am not sure if this is actually required as I couldn't find anything about it in the guidelines but I think adding it shouldn't hurt. Something like `%doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md` [1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-license-and-license-file-fields
(In reply to blinxen from comment #4) > Taking this review > > Some comments / issues with the package: > > - The upstream project does not include a license file in `Cargo.toml`. I > can see that you add it manually but it would be nice if you could push the > change to upstream. Maybe by specifying `license-file` [1]?. No. The `license-file` field in Cargo.toml is supposed to only be used if the license is non-standard (i.e. custom license with no corresponding SPDX identifier). > - The license path for the `devel` package is wrong. It should be `%license > %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE`. That *would* be true, but the upstream Cargo.toml specifies files to include, and `LICENSE` is not among the listed files. So it cannot be referenced this way unless the `include` setting in Cargo.toml is also fixed to include the "LICENSE" file. Otherwise it will not get copied to %{crate_instdir}. > - `rust2rpm` always adds the `%doc` directive to `devel` packages. I am not > sure if this is actually required as I couldn't find anything about it in > the guidelines but I think adding it shouldn't hurt. Something like `%doc > %{crate_instdir}/README.md` Yes, this line seems to be missing from the -devel subpackage's files: %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md
Sorry. I missed a piece. Apart adding %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md, should we ask upstream to fix or enhance something in the Cargo.toml file in order to avoid to manually include the LICENSE file? Thanks.
> Apart adding %doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md, should we ask upstream to fix or enhance something in the Cargo.toml file in order to avoid to manually include the LICENSE file? Yes. They are distributing sources that don't include their own license file. :( The list of files here needs to include a "LICENSE" file: https://github.com/dominikwilkowski/cfonts/blob/released/rust/Cargo.toml#L14 And there needs to be a copy (or symlink) of the file in the "rust" directory. Please report this with the upstream project. Also note that while the project's Cargo.toml references "../README.md" as its "readme" file, this is not really defined behaviour unless the "README.md" file is also included in the list of files to "include". --- Additionally, the "%package -n %{crate}" subpackage is still missing a License tag that contains the licenses that are printed by %cargo_license_summary.
Ok. I will contact upstream. About missing License tag. Doesn't %license LICENSE.dependencies where LICENSE.dependencies is generated by %{cargo_license} is sufficient?
(In reply to Alessio from comment #8) > Ok. I will contact upstream. Thanks! > About missing License tag. Doesn't > %license LICENSE.dependencies > where LICENSE.dependencies is generated by %{cargo_license} > is sufficient? No: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_rust_packages
Ah. So the License tag of the spec file, should be License: Apache-2.0 AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND ISC AND MIT considering that # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 # GPL-3.0-or-later # ISC # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 is the output of %cargo_license_summary. Or should it be License: Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND ISC AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) Thank you.
According to the latest guidance from Red Hat legal, the latter is the preferred form. c.f. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_conjunctive_and_licensing and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_combined_disjunctive_and_conjunctive_license_expressions
Are you still interested in this package?
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #12) > Are you still interested in this package? I would be interested, but I fear that I lack some concepts and knowledge :-/
The spec does look good to me, with the exception of the missing license tag + breakdown for the binary subpackage. Adding """ # Apache-2.0 # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 # GPL-3.0-or-later # ISC # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 License: Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND ISC AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) """ as discussed in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149953#c10 is the only thing that's still missing, as far as I can see. === The only other problem is that the current version (cfonts 1.1.0) has an outdated dependency and doesn't build right now. The suppors-color crate has been updated to version 2, which cfonts is not compatible with yet. You might want to ask upstream about bumping the supports-color dependency (if possible). I also commented on the upstream ticket that you raised, hopefully I could clear some things up.
Thank you @decathorpe
New build! Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/rustrpm/rust-cfonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/rustrpm/rust-cfonts-1.1.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1985374 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5537301 to 6345368
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345368 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149953-rust-cfonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345368-rust-cfonts/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.
Thanks for the update! Looks good to me, just one minor issue left: > License: Apache-2.0 AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND ISC AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) This license tag only applies to the "%package -n %{crate}" subpackage, please move it there. The license tag for the SRPM (and also inherited by all *-devel subpackages) should remain just "GPL-3.0-or-later". Other than that, package is ready for approval.
Ok, thank you Fabio. I updated the spec file. Is that okay?
Yup, looks good to me, thank you. I defer to blinxen for the final review and actual approval, since they already assigned this to themselves.
Looks good to me too!! APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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 cfonts , rust-cfonts-devel , rust-cfonts+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cfonts-1.1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-cfonts-devel-1.1.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-cfonts+default-devel-1.1.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm rust-cfonts-debugsource-1.1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rust-cfonts-1.1.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp8_r3vpt2')] checks: 31, packages: 5 cfonts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfonts rust-cfonts+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 4 cfonts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfonts rust-cfonts+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/cfonts/1.1.2/download#/cfonts-1.1.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2a4d36e7854c995338cdb426337e950cd201809f5888959fb06d3d0a9f99e763 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2a4d36e7854c995338cdb426337e950cd201809f5888959fb06d3d0a9f99e763 Requires -------- cfonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rust-cfonts-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(exitcode/default) >= 1.1.2 with crate(exitcode/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rand/default) >= 0.8.5 with crate(rand/default) < 0.9.0~) (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(serde_json/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde_json/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(strum/default) >= 0.25.0 with crate(strum/default) < 0.26.0~) (crate(strum_macros/default) >= 0.25.0 with crate(strum_macros/default) < 0.26.0~) (crate(supports-color/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(supports-color/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(terminal_size/default) >= 0.2.3 with crate(terminal_size/default) < 0.3.0~) cargo rust-cfonts+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(cfonts) rust-cfonts-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cfonts: cfonts cfonts(x86-64) rust-cfonts-devel: crate(cfonts) rust-cfonts-devel rust-cfonts+default-devel: crate(cfonts/default) rust-cfonts+default-devel rust-cfonts-debugsource: rust-cfonts-debugsource rust-cfonts-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rust-cfonts --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-cfonts
FEDORA-2023-9351f57531 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9351f57531
FEDORA-2023-9351f57531 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Thank you @h-k-81 Thank you @decathorpe
FEDORA-2023-2b675c99b5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2b675c99b5
Looks like the NEEDINFO was accidental?
FEDORA-2023-2b675c99b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2b675c99b5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2b675c99b5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-2b675c99b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.