Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-relm4-icons.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc39/rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Icons for gtk-rs and Relm4 applications Fedora Account System Username: jsteffan
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7617810 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2292546-rust-relm4-icons/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07617810-rust-relm4-icons/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.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-relm4-icons.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc39/rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Fixed any source issues. I now build the srpms in an isolated _sourcedir. Sigh. Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-relm4-icons.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/envision/rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc39/rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc40.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. The packaged version is not the latest, but that's not a blocker, APPROVED.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=123069140 looks good so I'm going to import this while waiting for the rest of the relm4 stack to be reviewed.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-relm4-icons
FEDORA-2024-e41089d853 (rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e41089d853
FEDORA-2024-e41089d853 (rust-relm4-icons-0.8.3-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
I see some issues with this package: > %license %{crate_instdir}/icons/icon-development-kit/license-cc-symbolic.svg > %license %{crate_instdir}/icons/icon-development-kit/license-copyleft-symbolic.svg > %license %{crate_instdir}/icons/icon-development-kit/license-copyright-symbolic.svg > %license %{crate_instdir}/icons/icon-development-kit/license-symbolic.svg These are *image files*, not license texts. They MUST not be marked as `%license`. The fact that they *are* marked as `%license` is a bug in rust2rpm heuristics for finding license files. Please correct this manually by removing these lines. > The icons in the `icons/icon-development-kit` folder are licensed under the terms of the [CC0 license](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/) and therefore public domain. > The icons in the `icons/fluentui-system-icons` folder are licensed under the terms of the [MIT license](https://opensource.org/license/MIT/). > Both licenses should work for both open source and proprietary applications (without warranty). This is not reflected in the packaging at all. The license should be corrected to `(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND CC0-1.0 AND MIT` to reflect that bundled icons are either CC0-1.0 or MIT-licensed.
I will make these updates. Thanks.
Thanks - You corrected it in the package, but not in Cargo.toml. The latter is used as source of information by the %cargo_license and %cargo_license_summary macros.