Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-mdbook-core.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-mdbook-core-0.5.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/mdbook-core Description: The base support library for mdbook, intended for internal use only. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146480791
The package is APPROVED, but please add a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/mdBook/pull/3135 for the missing license file when you import it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. A missing license file is correctly patched in, but an upstream status link is not present. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/mdbook- core-0.5.3/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions. - There is no upstream status link for patching in the LICENSE file. I couldn’t find an existing issue or PR, so I submitted https://github.com/rust-lang/mdBook/pull/3135; please add a link to that PR. ===== 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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2487581-rust-mdbook- core/licensecheck.txt [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 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. I opened https://github.com/rust-lang/mdBook/pull/3135; please link it in a spec-file comment. [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- mdbook-core-devel , rust-mdbook-core+default-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. A missing license file is correctly patched in, but an upstream status link is not present. Please link https://github.com/rust-lang/mdBook/pull/3135. [-]: 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. [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-mdbook-core-devel-0.5.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-mdbook-core+default-devel-0.5.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-mdbook-core-0.5.3-1.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/tmp3wskwmyb')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/mdbook-core/0.5.3/download#/mdbook-core-0.5.3.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6fc1c4da7fd9e2e412f3891428f9468fab890ed159723ed0892bb85a049ac1c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6fc1c4da7fd9e2e412f3891428f9468fab890ed159723ed0892bb85a049ac1c1 https://github.com/rust-lang/mdBook/raw/refs/tags/v0.5.3/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af175b9d96ee93c21a036152e1b905b0b95304d4ae8c2c921c7609100ba8df7e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af175b9d96ee93c21a036152e1b905b0b95304d4ae8c2c921c7609100ba8df7e Requires -------- rust-mdbook-core-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(anyhow/default) >= 1.0.102 with crate(anyhow/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(regex/default) >= 1.12.3 with crate(regex/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.228 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.228 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde_json/default) >= 1.0.149 with crate(serde_json/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(toml/default) >= 1.1.2 with crate(toml/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(tracing/default) >= 0.1.44 with crate(tracing/default) < 0.2.0~) cargo rust rust-mdbook-core+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(mdbook-core) Provides -------- rust-mdbook-core-devel: crate(mdbook-core) rust-mdbook-core-devel rust-mdbook-core+default-devel: crate(mdbook-core/default) rust-mdbook-core+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2487581 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review! I continue to be unsure whether the MPL-2.0 license actually technically *requires* including the license text in distributed sources, but actually having it in the published crates certainly makes things easier downstream. Thanks for filing the PR!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-mdbook-core Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-36288895d2
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Thank you for the review! > > I continue to be unsure whether the MPL-2.0 license actually technically > *requires* including the license text in distributed sources, but actually > having it in the published crates certainly makes things easier downstream. > Thanks for filing the PR! I think it doesn’t. From section 3.1, Distribution of Source Form: > You must inform recipients that the Source Code Form of the Covered Software is governed by the terms of this License, and how they can obtain a copy of this License. and from section 3.2, Distribution of Executable Form: > You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient Pretty similar to the GPL, as I understand it. That’s why I didn’t claim in the upstream PR that this was required. Still, as you said, it’s easier and better both upstream and downstream to just ship the license text.