Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-mp4parse.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-mp4parse-0.17.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Parser for ISO base media file format (mp4). Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126024746
Note 1: This is a review request for unretirement of this package. Note 2: This is a missing piece for enabling "native" (using libdav1d) decoding of AVIF images in the "image" crate.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8281523 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2327387-rust-mp4parse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08281523-rust-mp4parse/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-mp4parse Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Since we updated rust-fallible_collections from 0.4 to 0.5 in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d75b8e9bd2, we need to patch the dependency here, as in https://github.com/mozilla/mp4parse-rust/pull/422.
Thank you for the reminder (and submitting a PR upstream!) I've updated the package for fallible_collections 0.5 and regenerated the spec with rust2rpm v27. [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2061643 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8281523 to 8363968
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8363968 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2327387-rust-mp4parse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08363968-rust-mp4parse/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-mp4parse Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
The package is APPROVED, with a suggestion to consider whether you would like to hide the "unstable-api" feature if it’s not needed. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm (without rust2rpm.toml), except for the following: --- rust-mp4parse.spec 2025-01-30 11:35:04.234834403 -0500 +++ ../srpm-unpacked/rust-mp4parse.spec 2024-12-07 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@ License: MPL-2.0 URL: https://crates.io/crates/mp4parse Source: %{crates_source} +# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes +# * bump fallible_collections dependency from 0.4 to 0.5: +# https://github.com/mozilla/mp4parse-rust/pull/422 +# * drop unused, benchmark-only criterion dev-dependency +Patch: mp4parse-fix-metadata.diff BuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24 @@ -121,7 +126,10 @@ %if %{with check} %check -%cargo_test +# * test fixtures for integration tests are not included in published crates +# * skip test that fails on architectures with different memory requirements +%cargo_test -- --lib -- --exact --skip tests::read_to_end_oom +%cargo_test -- --doc %endif %changelog This greatly simplifies the review. The changes in mp4parse-fix-metadata.diff are appropriate, properly documented, and well-justified, and so are the skipped tests. Notes: ====== - You *might* consider hiding the "unstable-api" feature unless something explicitly requires it, so that you can ship SemVer-compatible updates with greater confidence. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/mp4parse-0.17.0/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is not a serious problem; it is a consequence of a reasonable design choice in rust2rpm. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-mp4parse See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names As noted in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2327387#c2, this is a re-review for unretirement. ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2327387-rust-mp4parse/licensecheck.txt Test data files are a common place to find license issues. While it is difficult-to-impossible to audit these with full confidence, the test data files included in the crate are few in number and small in size, and none have *obvious* copyright/license issues or present clear evidence that they don’t fall under the advertised overall license. I think the risk of serious problems here is acceptably low. [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. [x]: 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 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 (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- mp4parse-devel , rust-mp4parse+default-devel , rust-mp4parse+3gpp- devel , rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel , rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi- permitted-devel , rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel , rust-mp4parse+unstable- api-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (Tests pass.) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128657721 [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-mp4parse-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse+default-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse+3gpp-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi-permitted-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse+unstable-api-devel-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-mp4parse-0.17.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp5fj8t7d6')] checks: 32, packages: 8 rust-mp4parse+3gpp-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi-permitted-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+unstable-api-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 37 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 7 rust-mp4parse+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+unstable-api-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+3gpp-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi-permitted-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 33 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/mp4parse/0.17.0/download#/mp4parse-0.17.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 63a35203d3c6ce92d5251c77520acb2e57108c88728695aa883f70023624c570 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63a35203d3c6ce92d5251c77520acb2e57108c88728695aa883f70023624c570 Requires -------- rust-mp4parse-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bitreader/default) >= 0.3.2 with crate(bitreader/default) < 0.4.0~) (crate(byteorder/default) >= 1.2.1 with crate(byteorder/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(fallible_collections/default) >= 0.5.0 with crate(fallible_collections/default) < 0.6.0~) (crate(fallible_collections/std_io) >= 0.5.0 with crate(fallible_collections/std_io) < 0.6.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(num-traits/default) >= 0.2.14 with crate(num-traits/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(static_assertions/default) >= 1.1.0 with crate(static_assertions/default) < 2.0.0~) cargo rust-mp4parse+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mp4parse) rust-mp4parse+3gpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mp4parse) rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mp4parse) rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi-permitted-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mp4parse) rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mp4parse) rust-mp4parse+unstable-api-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mp4parse) Provides -------- rust-mp4parse-devel: crate(mp4parse) rust-mp4parse-devel rust-mp4parse+default-devel: crate(mp4parse/default) rust-mp4parse+default-devel rust-mp4parse+3gpp-devel: crate(mp4parse/3gpp) rust-mp4parse+3gpp-devel rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel: crate(mp4parse/meta-xml) rust-mp4parse+meta-xml-devel rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi-permitted-devel: crate(mp4parse/missing-pixi-permitted) rust-mp4parse+missing-pixi-permitted-devel rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel: crate(mp4parse/mp4v) rust-mp4parse+mp4v-devel rust-mp4parse+unstable-api-devel: crate(mp4parse/unstable-api) rust-mp4parse+unstable-api-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2327387 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, PHP, Java, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review! I can't actually find any documentation what's considered "unstable API", it's just a feature flag in Cargo.toml that's not mentioned anywhere else (other than as a conditional compilation gate for the "unstable" namespace in the crate). I don't actually need it for "image", it uses only the "default" features, so I'll go ahead and hide it from the package.
Unretirement request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12601
I have imported and built this package.