Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-cargo_toml_edit.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-cargo_toml_edit-0.0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/cargo_toml_edit Description: Programmatically edit Cargo.toml manifests. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148528741
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10799791 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2509869-rust-cargo_toml_edit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10799791-rust-cargo_toml_edit/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.
Hmm, it seems like the Cargo.toml files under tests/data/ would be covered by the licenses of the projects from which they are taken. These licenses all appear to be acceptable for Fedora, but I think they should be accounted for in the package license since the test data files are included in the binary RPMs. Even if these files were excluded from packaging (and therefore only in the source RPM), they ought to be accompanied by the license texts where required, e.g. for MIT and Apache-2.0.
Good catch. I think it could be argued that these are metadata-only files, and might not even be copyrightable as such, but excluding them from the built packages should be fine since they're only input for tests. I've used this rust2rpm.toml config snippet and refreshed the files behind the original URLs: ``` [package] exclude-crate-files = [ # input files for tests: # sourced from various projects under various licenses "tests/data/", ] ```
This looks good, but I am going to be picky about license texts in the sources and suggest https://codeberg.org/rust2rpm/cargo_toml_edit/pulls/5. I know I’m not perfectly consistent about whether I get hung up on that or not, and you can probably find packages I maintain that lack some “secondary” license texts, but I try. At least I did the legwork of collecting the license files.
Hmm, you make a good case in https://codeberg.org/rust2rpm/cargo_toml_edit/pulls/5#issuecomment-20612684 that these normalized, machine-processed Cargo.toml files probably don’t have any copyrightable work from the original projects. This implies we didn’t really need to exclude the test data files from the binary RPMs, either. I’m therefore going to approve this as-is from my phone. I’ll try to remember to follow up with a review template for posterity later.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, except that this line is added: %exclude %{crate_instdir}/tests/data/ This is fine. You make a good case in https://codeberg.org/rust2rpm/cargo_toml_edit/pulls/5#issuecomment-20612684 that these normalized, machine-processed Cargo.toml files probably don’t have any copyrightable work from the original projects. This implies we didn’t really need to exclude the test data files from the binary RPMs, either. Excluding the test data files, which are Cargo.toml files from various real-world projects, avoids the need to enumerate all of their licenses as part of the binary pakcage License. The complete set of licenses mentioned in sample Cargo.toml files is: license = "Apache-2.0 OR MIT" license = "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT" license = "LGPL-2.0-or-later" license = "MIT" license = "MIT/Apache-2.0" license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0" license = "MPL-2.0" If we accept that these files don’t contain copyrightable work from the original projects, then none of this matters because the licenses are only referenced, and don’t apply here. If we happened to be wrong about this, then the only issue would be missing mandatory license texts; all of these licenses are at least allowed in Fedora. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/cargo_toml_edit-0.0.3/CHANGELOG.md 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", "MIT License". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260804/2509869-rust- cargo_toml_edit/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. [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- cargo_toml_edit-devel , rust-cargo_toml_edit+default-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=148528741 [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-cargo_toml_edit-devel-0.0.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-cargo_toml_edit+default-devel-0.0.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-cargo_toml_edit-0.0.3-1.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/tmpodf31zr9')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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/cargo_toml_edit/0.0.3/download#/cargo_toml_edit-0.0.3.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fddaf2d810a469628991dd7fa53b20b4f473cf68ebd26224ec94da914542a00 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fddaf2d810a469628991dd7fa53b20b4f473cf68ebd26224ec94da914542a00 Requires -------- rust-cargo_toml_edit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(cfg-expr/default) >= 0.20.0 with crate(cfg-expr/default) < 0.21.0~) (crate(log/default) >= 0.4.0 with crate(log/default) < 0.5.0~) (crate(thiserror/default) >= 2.0.0 with crate(thiserror/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(toml_edit/default) >= 0.25.0 with crate(toml_edit/default) < 0.26.0~) cargo rust rust-cargo_toml_edit+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(cargo_toml_edit) Provides -------- rust-cargo_toml_edit-devel: crate(cargo_toml_edit) purl(pkg:cargo/cargo_toml_edit.3) rust-cargo_toml_edit-devel rust-cargo_toml_edit+default-devel: crate(cargo_toml_edit/default) rust-cargo_toml_edit+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2509869 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you - and as always, I appreciate the thorough review. > This implies we didn’t really need to exclude the test data files from the binary RPMs, either. Right, though I think it still makes sense to exclude the files to make the built packages smaller, so I'm going to keep the %exclude.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-cargo_toml_edit Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-8e258c4340 (rust2rpm-helper-0.2.0-1.fc45 and rust-cargo_toml_edit-0.0.3-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8e258c4340
FEDORA-2026-8e258c4340 (rust2rpm-helper-0.2.0-1.fc45 and rust-cargo_toml_edit-0.0.3-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.