Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rqrr.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rqrr-0.9.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Detect and read QR codes from any image source. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
Unfortunately, I found some license issues. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. I note two changes: +# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes +# * drop unused, benchmark-only criterion dev-dependency +Patch: rqrr-fix-metadata.diff This is reasonable, justified, and appropriate to do downstream-only. +%exclude %{crate_instdir}/src/test_data/ +%exclude %{crate_instdir}/tests/data/ This is reasonable, justified, and appropriate to do downstream-only. It might have also worked to patch the includes/excludes in Cargo.toml. Formally, rpm holds the position that %exclude was never designed to omit files from packaging entirely, only to exclude certain files from a broad pattern in one subpackage while including them in another subpackage. In theory, this might stop working in a future version of rpm; this was already attempted once. See https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994 for details and discussion. Accordingly, if you can handle this adequately via Cargo.toml rather than by %exclude, that’s probably safer in the long run, even though such a change in rpm can’t be expected to hit Fedora without quite a bit of advance warning. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/rqrr-0.9.0/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm and is not a serious issue. - As discussed above, consider whether it makes more sense to exclude test data files via Cargo.toml. - README.md acknowledges that the library is based on quirc, This library was made on the base of [quirc](https://github.com/dlbeer/quirc) and LICENSE-MIT contains not only the MIT license text, but also the ISC license text from quirc. This feels a little like an effort by upstream to hedge or have it both ways. If in fact this crate is (copyright-wise) derived from quirc, then the license expression should be (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND ISC. It’s probably worth raising the issue with upstream and suggesting that they alter the license expression. (It might also make sense to move the ISC license text to a LICENSE-ISC file, since it’s surprising to find it in a file named LICENSE-MIT.) - Most of the test data appears not to have license issues (it looks like it is original work of the upstream author), but tests/data/errors/should-not-panic-2.jpg is a photograph of a computer screen clearly displaying a screenshot of a web page, including images and text with unknown and presumably proprietary license status. This needs to be filtered out from the crate before uploading to the lookaside cache. The file tests/data/errors/should-not-panic-1.jpg is a screenshot that includes a tiny thumbnail image and a very small amount of potentially legible text. This is less concerning to me because the questionably-licensed content is so tiny and minimal, but it’s still probably worth treating it the same as tests/data/errors/should-not-panic-2.jpg. It’s probably worth raising this issue with upstream as well. ===== 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. [!]: 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* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License and/or MIT License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2350889-rust-rqrr/licensecheck.txt See Issues; there is ISC license text that is not reflected in 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. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. See Issues; some test images appear to depict proprietary content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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 (except as otherwise mentioned) [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. Ideally, the ISC license text would be in its own file. [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- rqrr-devel , rust-rqrr+default-devel , rust-rqrr+image-devel , rust- rqrr+img-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. [?]: 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]: 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-rqrr-devel-0.9.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-rqrr+default-devel-0.9.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-rqrr+image-devel-0.9.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-rqrr+img-devel-0.9.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm rust-rqrr-0.9.0-1.fc43.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/tmpvlsy94c2')] checks: 32, packages: 5 rust-rqrr+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rqrr+image-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rqrr+img-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 4 rust-rqrr+img-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rqrr+image-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-rqrr+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/rqrr/0.9.0/download#/rqrr-0.9.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f126a9b02152815d84315316e7a759ee18a216d057095d56d19cec68a428b385 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f126a9b02152815d84315316e7a759ee18a216d057095d56d19cec68a428b385 Requires -------- rust-rqrr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(g2p/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(g2p/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(lru/default) >= 0.12.0 with crate(lru/default) < 0.13.0~) cargo rust rust-rqrr+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rqrr) crate(rqrr/img) rust-rqrr+image-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(image) >= 0.25.0 with crate(image) < 0.26.0~) cargo crate(rqrr) rust-rqrr+img-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(rqrr) crate(rqrr/image) Provides -------- rust-rqrr-devel: crate(rqrr) rust-rqrr-devel rust-rqrr+default-devel: crate(rqrr/default) rust-rqrr+default-devel rust-rqrr+image-devel: crate(rqrr/image) rust-rqrr+image-devel rust-rqrr+img-devel: crate(rqrr/img) rust-rqrr+img-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2350889 -L qrdeps/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Python, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2gen+default-devel-1.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2gen-devel-1.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2poly+default-devel-1.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2poly-devel-1.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2p+default-devel-1.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/qrdeps/rust-g2p-devel-1.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #1) > Unfortunately, I found some license issues. > > Package Review > ============== > > It might have also worked to patch the includes/excludes in Cargo.toml. > Formally, rpm holds the position that %exclude was never designed to omit > files > from packaging entirely, only to exclude certain files from a broad pattern > in > one subpackage while including them in another subpackage. In theory, this > might stop working in a future version of rpm; this was already attempted > once. > See https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/994 for details and > discussion. Accordingly, if you can handle this adequately via Cargo.toml > rather than by %exclude, that’s probably safer in the long run, even though > such a change in rpm can’t be expected to hit Fedora without quite a bit of > advance warning. Yeah, I'm aware of this. For changes to Cargo.toml that are upstreamable, I would definitely prefer doing it via include / exclude settings in Cargo.toml, but for a downstream-only change, I feel less strongly about that. Though given unclear status of some test data, excluding those from published crates by pushing a Cargo.toml change upstream might actually be a better idea ... > - README.md acknowledges that the library is based on quirc, > > This library was made on the base of > [quirc](https://github.com/dlbeer/quirc) > > and LICENSE-MIT contains not only the MIT license text, but also the ISC > license text from quirc. > > This feels a little like an effort by upstream to hedge or have it both > ways. > If in fact this crate is (copyright-wise) derived from quirc, then the > license expression should be (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND ISC. > > It’s probably worth raising the issue with upstream and suggesting that > they > alter the license expression. (It might also make sense to move the ISC > license text to a LICENSE-ISC file, since it’s surprising to find it in a > file named LICENSE-MIT.) Oh, that is sneaky. I'll raise this upstream. > - Most of the test data appears not to have license issues (it looks like it > is > original work of the upstream author), but > tests/data/errors/should-not-panic-2.jpg is a photograph of a computer > screen > clearly displaying a screenshot of a web page, including images and text > with > unknown and presumably proprietary license status. This needs to be > filtered > out from the crate before uploading to the lookaside cache. > > The file tests/data/errors/should-not-panic-1.jpg is a screenshot that > includes a tiny thumbnail image and a very small amount of potentially > legible text. This is less concerning to me because the > questionably-licensed > content is so tiny and minimal, but it’s still probably worth treating it > the > same as tests/data/errors/should-not-panic-2.jpg. > > It’s probably worth raising this issue with upstream as well. I will mention this upstream as well. The safest option might be to exclude all the test data from the tarballs that are published to crates.io.
Based on discussion in the #rust:fedoraproject.org channel on Matrix, I have - filed https://github.com/WanzenBug/rqrr/pull/34 for excluding the test data, and - filed https://github.com/WanzenBug/rqrr/issues/35 for the incomplete license expression.
I saw that upstream followed up and issued a new release. Since I won’t be able to follow up on this review for a couple of weeks, I’m stepping back from it for now so that there’s the possibility of someone else finishing the review sooner. If this package hasn’t found a reviewer by the time I’m available again, I’m still happy to finish the review.
No problem! Yes, the developer was very helpful and it was great to see this resolved so quickly. Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rqrr.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-rqrr-0.9.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8804701 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2350889-rust-rqrr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08804701-rust-rqrr/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 was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. ✅ package contains only permissible content ✅ package builds and installs without errors on rawhide ✅ test suite is run and all unit tests pass (doctests are disabled because of missing fixtures) ✅ latest version of the crate is packaged ✅ license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora (was fixed, see previous comments) ✅ license file is included with %license in %files ✅ package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rqrr
FEDORA-2025-6ed742195b (rust-gufo-0.2.1-1.fc43, rust-gufo-jpeg-0.2.0-2.fc43, and 2 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6ed742195b
FEDORA-2025-6ed742195b (rust-gufo-0.2.1-1.fc43, rust-gufo-jpeg-0.2.0-2.fc43, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.