Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-anstyle-hyperlink.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-anstyle-hyperlink-1.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://crates.io/crates/anstyle-hyperlink Description: ANSI escape code hyperlinks (OSC 8). Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149250901
The package is APPROVED, with some discussion of the proper handling of code copied from the grep-cli crate, but without any recommended changes. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec is entirely rust2rpm boilerplate without any manual adjustments. Per the comment at the top of the file, src/hostname.rs is copied from ripgrep. Copying of snippets leads me to check for license compliance. There are a couple of potential concerns here. - If this snippet were copied under ripgrep’s MIT license option, matching this crate’s MIT license option, then it would be formally required to include ripgrep’s license text. - If this snippet were copied under ripgrep’s MIT license option, then the license of this crate should not be (MIT OR Apache-2.0), because it would contain some MIT-only code. However, the other option for ripgrep is Unlicense, which attempts to be a public-domain dedication in jurisdictions that recognize one and as close as possible in jurisdictions that do not. If we assume that this code is used under ripgrep’s Unlicense option, there are no requirements whatsoever, not even attribution, and so the inclusion of this code with attribution but implicitly under the crate’s overall licenses seems legitimate. It’s unclear when inclusion of a portion of another program should be documented as bundling. Usually, I like to err on the side of recommending the virtual Provides for copied code, and I think that wouldn’t be *wrong* here: Provides: bundled(crate(grep-cli)) = 0.1.9^20230925.7099e17 If a major flaw were found in this routine in ripgrep, the virtual Provides could in theory lead to this crate being checked and fixed. But the amount of code copied is *so tiny* relative to ripgrep as a whole, or even to the grep-cli crate, that it’s much more likely that adding would lead to nothing at all, or to noise and confusion. I acknowledge that there is no guidance codifying that principle, and that no bright line separates bundling and not-bundling. Similarly, I guess we *could* ask upstream to depend on the grep-cli crate instead of copying this function, because it *is* part of grep-cli’s public API, and if we think this is bundling then I guess we are supposed to do this. But is it reasonable? In the end, I think I’m not recommending any changes to the spec file. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/anstyle- hyperlink-1.0.2/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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2517878-rust-anstyle- hyperlink/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. See discussion at the top of this review. A case could be made for adding a virtual Provides indicating bundling from the grep-cli crate due to the copying of src/hostname.rs, and I think adding it would be valid, but I also think it shouldn’t be required here due to the small amount of code that was copied. I acknowledge that there is no guidance codifying that principle, and that no bright line separates bundling and not-bundling. [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. [-]: 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. See discussion at the top of this review regarding license of the ripgrep snippet. [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- anstyle-hyperlink-devel , rust-anstyle-hyperlink+default-devel , rust- anstyle-hyperlink+file-devel , rust-anstyle-hyperlink+std-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [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=149250901 [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-anstyle-hyperlink-devel-1.0.2-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-anstyle-hyperlink+default-devel-1.0.2-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-anstyle-hyperlink+file-devel-1.0.2-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-anstyle-hyperlink+std-devel-1.0.2-1.fc46.noarch.rpm rust-anstyle-hyperlink-1.0.2-1.fc46.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/tmp3z7y3g3g')] checks: 32, packages: 5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 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: 33, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/anstyle-hyperlink/1.0.2/download#/anstyle-hyperlink-1.0.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a14cad0fa1d1fb02de486a95ea7fd8dd28567b82f65b4ca34bffa7da81823e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a14cad0fa1d1fb02de486a95ea7fd8dd28567b82f65b4ca34bffa7da81823e4 Requires -------- rust-anstyle-hyperlink-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust rust-anstyle-hyperlink+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(anstyle-hyperlink) crate(anstyle-hyperlink/std) rust-anstyle-hyperlink+file-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(libc/default) >= 0.2.180 with crate(libc/default) < 0.3.0~) (crate(percent-encoding/default) >= 2.3.2 with crate(percent-encoding/default) < 3.0.0~) cargo crate(anstyle-hyperlink) crate(anstyle-hyperlink/std) rust-anstyle-hyperlink+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(anstyle-hyperlink) Provides -------- rust-anstyle-hyperlink-devel: crate(anstyle-hyperlink) purl(pkg:cargo/anstyle-hyperlink.2) rust-anstyle-hyperlink-devel rust-anstyle-hyperlink+default-devel: crate(anstyle-hyperlink/default) rust-anstyle-hyperlink+default-devel rust-anstyle-hyperlink+file-devel: crate(anstyle-hyperlink/file) rust-anstyle-hyperlink+file-devel rust-anstyle-hyperlink+std-devel: crate(anstyle-hyperlink/std) rust-anstyle-hyperlink+std-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2517878 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review! Good catch wrt/ the function included from grep-cli. I agree with your analysis - I will add a note to an otherwise empty rust2rpm.toml config file that explains this situation.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-anstyle-hyperlink 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-ce471fc0d3