Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Created attachment 2145840 [details] Configuration file for rust2rpm Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-seize.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/rust-seize-0.5.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Fast, efficient, and predictable memory reclamation for concurrent data structures. Fedora Account System Username: music This is an indirect new dependency for uv. I confirmed that this builds on all architectures, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146800049. The test suite includes some concurrency stress tests, and you can expect it to take several minutes to finish.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/390668/
Created attachment 2145842 [details] Configuration file for rust2rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10616649 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2490673-rust-seize/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10616649-rust-seize/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10616650 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2490673-rust-seize/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10616650-rust-seize/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.
Package looks good to me. There's one minor thing that you might want to address in some way (- or not): There are two files in the crate ( src/raw/tls/{mod.rs,thread_id.rs} ) that have "MIT OR Apache-2.0" license headers. It looks like they were included from a different project. If we assume that the upstream project wants to distribute the whole crate as just "MIT" and choose the "MIT" option for those two files - which I think is a reasonable deduction, since that *is* the license they set in Cargo.toml - then I think that should be fine and not require any changes downstream. === 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 ✅ latest version of the crate is packaged ✅ license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora ✅ license file is included with %license in %files ✅ package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === 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 - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5) > There's one minor thing that you might want to address in some way (- or > not): > > There are two files in the crate ( src/raw/tls/{mod.rs,thread_id.rs} ) that > have "MIT OR Apache-2.0" license headers. It looks like they were included > from a different project. If we assume that the upstream project wants to > distribute the whole crate as just "MIT" and choose the "MIT" option for > those two files - which I think is a reasonable deduction, since that *is* > the license they set in Cargo.toml - then I think that should be fine and > not require any changes downstream. Well spotted. It looks like these two files were originally derived from https://crates.io/crates/thread_local. There’s a good argument that the guidelines for filling the license field would like us to write “MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)” without any further analysis. Sadly, that would suggest that we ought to include a copy of the Apache-2.0 text as well. On the other hand, I agree that it’s pretty clear that upstream is just preserving the original attribution and copyright and license statement here, and intends to use them under the MIT option. After all, it’s not possible to compile a binary that only uses these two source files and doesn’t include any of the MIT-only sources. I also think it’s extremely unlikely that upstream would want to change the license to “MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0)” or distribute an Apache-2.0 license text file. It therefore feels rather silly to go through the exercise of pedantically describing the Apache-2.0 option for these two files.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-seize Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
I decided on the pedantic approach: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-seize/c/054eecfddac186c17f72691a132aa1520fc2fedf?branch=rawhide
FEDORA-2026-2a4eb87714 (rust-seize-0.5.1-2.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-2a4eb87714
FEDORA-2026-2a4eb87714 (rust-seize-0.5.1-2.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.