Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345574
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235088-rust-libheif-rs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345574-rust-libheif-rs/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Package looks good to me, with one exception:

There's test images in the /data/ directory. It's unclear to me where they come from or if they're freely redistributable.
They can be dropped from the package, because tests are not run anyway. But I'm not sure if we'd need a "clean" tarball as well.
If the pictures are *not* redistributable, they should likely be excluded from published crates by upstream (or not committed to git at all). :(

Thanks Fabio! Let me ask upstream.

OK, I've filed:
https://github.com/Cykooz/libheif-rs/issues/14
https://github.com/Cykooz/libheif-rs/issues/15
https://github.com/Cykooz/libheif-rs/issues/16

Looks like the two blocking issues are resolved in the latest version?

Indeed, and I apparently even had updated locally, but forgot to update the review request:

Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/rust-libheif-rs.spec
SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/rust-libheif-rs-0.21.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106439272

There's even newer, 0.22.0 release available from upstream now, but that requires rust-libheif-sys update first, so I've left it out for now to simplify things. Either version should be fine for glycin-loaders.

One thing I am unsure about is how to handle the test data licensing and if we should reflect it in the license tag. Upstream cleaned the test data up nicely and it's all under CC-BY-SA-4.0 now, but didn't reflect the CC-BY-SA-4.0 addition in the crate license. My gut feeling is that this is the right thing to do, because whatever we put in the license field gets included in the license field of the packages that consume the rust crate (e.g. glycin-loaders), and they don't use the test data (and CC-BY-SA-4.0 license) at all. Maybe an option would be to exclude the test data in %files list?

This looks good to me, thanks! 

Yes, you can use an %exclude line in the %files list to exclude the test data.
In that case, the license also doesn't have to be listed in the License tag.
Marking the CC-By-SA-4.0 license text as %license is not strictly necessary in this case, I think, but it doesn't hurt either.
However, it would be good to have a comment in the spec file to explain the situation.

===

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide
- test suite is run and all unit tests pass
- latest version of the crate is packaged
- license matches upstream specification (MIT) and is acceptable for Fedora
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

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: 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)

Ah, forgot to change this:

-- latest version of the crate is packaged
+! latest version of the crate is packaged (with explanation)

Thanks! OK, I'll go with the %exclude and not listing the test data in the license tag then.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-libheif-rs

Package imported and built.