https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2419776
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- This is a review for unretirement. The submission looks fine except for an issue with the license text, noted below, and a general caution that this is unmaintained upstream, which does not prevent you from packaging it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm with no configuration file, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/plotters- backend-0.3.7/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is not a serious problem, and is due to reasonable design decisions in rust2rpm. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-plotters-backend See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names I note that this is a review for unretirement. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming - The LICENSE file contains the text "../LICENSE"; see https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/issues/649. Please link this issue and include the correct license text, something like (in rust2rpm.toml): [[package.extra-sources]] number = 10 file = "https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/raw/refs/tags/v%{version}/LICENSE"; comments = [ "[BUG] latest published versions contain bogus LICENSE files", "https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/issues/649";, ] [scripts.prep] post = ["cp -p '%{SOURCE10}' ."] This will result in: --- srpm-unpacked/rust-plotters-backend.spec 2025-12-07 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 +++ rebuild/rust-plotters-backend.spec 2026-02-02 14:03:03.762131177 +0000 @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ License: MIT URL: https://crates.io/crates/plotters-backend Source: %{crates_source} +# * [BUG] latest published versions contain bogus LICENSE files +# * https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/issues/649 +Source10: https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/raw/refs/tags/v%{version}/LICENSE BuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24 @@ -49,6 +52,7 @@ %prep %autosetup -n %{crate}-%{version} -p1 %cargo_prep +cp -p '%{SOURCE10}' . %generate_buildrequires %cargo_generate_buildrequires - Be aware that the plotters project as a whole is unmaintained upstream; see https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/issues/702. You are permitted to package unmaintained software, but it comes with greater challenges, and ones that tend to grow over time. ===== 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". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2419776-rust- plotters-backend/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. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. The license file is bogus and does not contain the license text. See Issues. [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 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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. https://github.com/plotters-rs/plotters/issues/649 [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- plotters-backend-devel , rust-plotters-backend+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=141825052 [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-plotters-backend-devel-0.3.7-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-plotters-backend+default-devel-0.3.7-1.fc44.noarch.rpm rust-plotters-backend-0.3.7-1.fc44.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/tmppzul4u0d')] 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: 2.8.0 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 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/plotters-backend/0.3.7/download#/plotters-backend-0.3.7.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : df42e13c12958a16b3f7f4386b9ab1f3e7933914ecea48da7139435263a4172a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : df42e13c12958a16b3f7f4386b9ab1f3e7933914ecea48da7139435263a4172a Requires -------- rust-plotters-backend-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-plotters-backend+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(plotters-backend) Provides -------- rust-plotters-backend-devel: crate(plotters-backend) rust-plotters-backend-devel rust-plotters-backend+default-devel: crate(plotters-backend/default) rust-plotters-backend+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2419776 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, Java, R, Python, PHP, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2419776 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202419776%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
