Bug 2214384 - Review Request: rust-matchit - Blazing fast URL router
Summary: Review Request: rust-matchit - Blazing fast URL router
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: blinxen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2214429
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-06-12 19:50 UTC by Fabio Valentini
Modified: 2023-07-02 17:49 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rust-matchit-0.7.0-1.fc39
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-07-02 17:49:51 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
h-k-81: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabio Valentini 2023-06-12 19:50:35 UTC
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-matchit.spec
SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-matchit-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
A blazing fast URL router.

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-12 19:50:38 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102073175

Comment 2 blinxen 2023-06-27 23:00:35 UTC
Taking this review

General comments:

- Package was generated with rust2rpm and some changes were made
- Tests were deactivated because of a missing dependency --> should be OK but packaging dependency and reactivating tests is preffered

Issues:

- Feature `__test_helpers` is packaged with the crate. I don't think this should be packaged. The feature is only meant to be used internally by the crate (from my understanding).
- The code itself is licensed under MIT but the author wrote "A lot of the code in this package was based on Julien Schmidt's httprouter." and included the license file (BSD-3-Clause) of `httprouter` in the crate. Shouldn't the package also have both licenses defined (MIT and BSD-3-Clause)?


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

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE.httprouter is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License".
     13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rust-matchit/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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 rust-
     matchit-devel , rust-matchit+default-devel , rust-
     matchit+__test_helpers-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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-matchit-devel-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          rust-matchit+default-devel-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel-0.7.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          rust-matchit-0.7.0-1.fc38.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/tmp8963_np9')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-matchit+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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
checks: 31, packages: 3

rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-matchit+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/matchit/0.7.0/download#/matchit-0.7.0.crate :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b87248edafb776e59e6ee64a79086f65890d3510f2c656c000bf2a7e8a0aea40
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b87248edafb776e59e6ee64a79086f65890d3510f2c656c000bf2a7e8a0aea40


Requires
--------
rust-matchit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo

rust-matchit+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(matchit)

rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(matchit)



Provides
--------
rust-matchit-devel:
    crate(matchit)
    rust-matchit-devel

rust-matchit+default-devel:
    crate(matchit/default)
    rust-matchit+default-devel

rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel:
    crate(matchit/__test_helpers)
    rust-matchit+__test_helpers-devel



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-matchit --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, Java, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Python, PHP, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-27 23:10:10 UTC
(In reply to blinxen from comment #2)
> Taking this review

Thanks for taking a look!

> General comments:
> 
> - Package was generated with rust2rpm and some changes were made
> - Tests were deactivated because of a missing dependency --> should be OK
> but packaging dependency and reactivating tests is preffered

In this case, I'd really rather not. Packaging pre-releases is painful.

> Issues:
> 
> - Feature `__test_helpers` is packaged with the crate. I don't think this
> should be packaged. The feature is only meant to be used internally by the
> crate (from my understanding).

Good catch, I will update the spec to remove this feature subpackage.

> - The code itself is licensed under MIT but the author wrote "A lot of the
> code in this package was based on Julien Schmidt's httprouter." and included
> the license file (BSD-3-Clause) of `httprouter` in the crate. Shouldn't the
> package also have both licenses defined (MIT and BSD-3-Clause)?

Not sure how to handle this. The "httprouter" project is written entirely in Go ...
So this crate would need to be a 100% rewrite since it can't even contain any of the original code, and I don't think licenses carry over for 100% rewrites.

I've uploaded updated files.

Comment 4 blinxen 2023-06-28 21:36:19 UTC
> In this case, I'd really rather not. Packaging pre-releases is painful.

Understandable

> So this crate would need to be a 100% rewrite since it can't even contain any of the original code, and I don't think licenses carry over for 100% rewrites.

According to the legal mailing list [1], the license also applies on rewrites.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/QDQXYBY4OVYZQ4GHKRZN5KXAO7OWTWJX/

Comment 5 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-30 11:16:29 UTC
I've filed an upstream ticket asking for clarification:
https://github.com/ibraheemdev/matchit/issues/32

Files are updated to reflect the "MIT AND BSD-3-Clause" change.

Comment 6 blinxen 2023-07-01 18:47:12 UTC
Looks good now to me!

APPROVED

Comment 7 Fabio Valentini 2023-07-02 17:34:12 UTC
Great, thanks for the review!

Comment 8 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-07-02 17:34:37 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-matchit

Comment 9 Fabio Valentini 2023-07-02 17:49:51 UTC
Imported and built:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-03a79847a4


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.