Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-font-types.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/rust-font-types-0.11.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/font-types Description: Scalar types used in fonts. Fedora Account System Username: pnemade
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143891202
It looks like you modified the output of rust2rpm by removing the lines marking LICENSE-APACHE and LICENSE-MIT as license files, and README.md as documentation. --- c/rust-font-types.spec 2026-03-31 22:42:23.191868272 +0100 +++ srpm-unpacked/rust-font-types.spec 2026-03-31 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -30,9 +30,6 @@ use the "%{crate}" crate. %files devel -%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE -%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MIT -%doc %{crate_instdir}/README.md %{crate_instdir}/ %package -n %{name}+default-devel Why? If it is because fedora-review gives a finding about “Package does not contain duplicates in %files.” otherwise, this is not a serious problem, and this diagnostic is reported for every rust2rpm-packaged submission. This just means the files were matched in the files list more than one way, not that there are duplicate packaged copies of the files, and this due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm. Removing these lines means that license and documentation files are not correctly marked as such, which *is* a real defect, e.g. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text.
Thank you for this initial review. Yes I am new to rust packaging and I followed the findings from fedora-review tool. I have added back License files with same SPEC and SRPM URL. Kindly check again and review this package.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10280931 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453339-rust-font-types/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10280931-rust-font-types/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.
No issues found; the package is APPROVED. It’s neat to see Rust-based font tooling starting to show up. Happy to help with any issues you might encounter, or you can ask questions in the Fedora Rust room on Matrix. === 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 (*NOT* pre-release 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) === Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/font- types-0.11.1/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions. ===== 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", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2453339-rust-font-types/licensecheck.txt [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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- font-types-devel , rust-font-types+default-devel , rust-font- types+bytemuck-devel , rust-font-types+serde-devel , rust-font- types+std-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143891202 [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-font-types-devel-0.11.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-font-types+default-devel-0.11.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-font-types+bytemuck-devel-0.11.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-font-types+serde-devel-0.11.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-font-types+std-devel-0.11.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-font-types-0.11.1-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpjnn0ec7k')] checks: 32, packages: 6 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/font-types/0.11.1/download#/font-types-0.11.1.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73829a7b5c91198af28a99159b7ae4afbb252fb906159ff7f189f3a2ceaa3df2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73829a7b5c91198af28a99159b7ae4afbb252fb906159ff7f189f3a2ceaa3df2 Requires -------- rust-font-types-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust rust-font-types+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(font-types) rust-font-types+bytemuck-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bytemuck/default) >= 1.13.1 with crate(bytemuck/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(bytemuck/derive) >= 1.13.1 with crate(bytemuck/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(bytemuck/min_const_generics) >= 1.13.1 with crate(bytemuck/min_const_generics) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(font-types) rust-font-types+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(font-types) rust-font-types+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(font-types) Provides -------- rust-font-types-devel: crate(font-types) rust-font-types-devel rust-font-types+default-devel: crate(font-types/default) rust-font-types+default-devel rust-font-types+bytemuck-devel: crate(font-types/bytemuck) rust-font-types+bytemuck-devel rust-font-types+serde-devel: crate(font-types/serde) rust-font-types+serde-devel rust-font-types+std-devel: crate(font-types/std) rust-font-types+std-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2453339 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, PHP, fonts, Java, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-font-types
FEDORA-2026-6f8429a6ec (rust-font-types-0.11.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-6f8429a6ec
FEDORA-2026-6f8429a6ec (rust-font-types-0.11.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Thank you for the quick review help.