https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2455091
--- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- I think we are almost there, except for a license quibble. This review is based on your submission before you patched out the rand dev-dependency. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is generated by rust2rpm, simplifying the review. The original sources for generated code are correctly included in Source10. Everything here seems to be under a clear license that is acceptable in Fedora; see bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2461078 for license analysis of the test font data. A downstream metadata patch drops the criterion dev-dependency since it is benchmark-only. This is necessary, correct, and well-documented. Experimental and preview features that may break SemVer are hidden until and unless something actually needs them, a good practice. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/read- fonts-0.39.2/LICENSE-APACHE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files OK: not a serious problem; due to reasonable rust2rpm design decisions - The new agl feature (“Support for mapping glyph names <-> unicode via the Adobe glyph list”) relies on “code” (really, just a data table in Rust source form, data/generated/generated_agl.rs) generated from data/glyphlist.txt, the “Adobe Glyph List,” which is licensed BSD-3-Clause. This would seem to require the license expression in Cargo.toml to be patched from “MIT OR Apache-2.0” to “(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND BSD-3-Clause”. I suggested this change upstream in https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/pull/1859. I think you need to patch the license expression downstream in your cargo metadata patch, adding a comment to package.cargo-toml-patch-comments linking the upstream 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 182 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2455091-rust-read- fonts/licensecheck.txt The new agl feature (“Support for mapping glyph names <-> unicode via the Adobe glyph list”) relies on “code” (really, just a data table in Rust source form, data/generated/generated_agl.rs) generated from data/glyphlist.xt, the “Adobe Glyph List,” which is licensed BSD-3-Clause. This would seem to require the license expression in Cargo.toml to be patched from “MIT OR Apache-2.0” to “(MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND BSD-3-Clause”. [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. BSD-3-Clause portion is not documented. [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. [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 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: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source10: https://github.com/googlefonts/fontations/archive/read- fonts-v0.39.2/fontation-read-fonts-v0.39.2.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ OK: not sure why fedora-review had trouble, but “spectool -g” worked fine [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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=145395108 [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]: 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]: 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. fonts: [!]: Run fc-query on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Not applicable; this does not actually install any fonts. [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Not applicable; this does not actually install any fonts. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-read-fonts-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+default-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+agl-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+libm-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+serde-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts+std-devel-0.39.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rust-read-fonts-0.39.2-1.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/tmpwcajwi2d')] checks: 32, packages: 9 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 50 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 8 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 45 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/read-fonts/0.39.2/download#/read-fonts-0.39.2.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c4ed38b89c2c77ff968c524145ad65fb010f38af5c7a224b53b81d47ac2daa81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c4ed38b89c2c77ff968c524145ad65fb010f38af5c7a224b53b81d47ac2daa81 Requires -------- rust-read-fonts-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(bytemuck/default) >= 1.13.1 with crate(bytemuck/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(font-types/bytemuck) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/bytemuck) < 0.12.0~) (crate(font-types/default) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/default) < 0.12.0~) cargo rust rust-read-fonts+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+agl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+libm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(core_maths/default) >= 0.1.0 with crate(core_maths/default) < 0.2.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+serde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(font-types/serde) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/serde) < 0.12.0~) (crate(serde/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(serde/derive) >= 1.0.0 with crate(serde/derive) < 2.0.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts+std-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(font-types/std) >= 0.11.3 with crate(font-types/std) < 0.12.0~) cargo crate(read-fonts) Provides -------- rust-read-fonts-devel: crate(read-fonts) rust-read-fonts-devel rust-read-fonts+default-devel: crate(read-fonts/default) rust-read-fonts+default-devel rust-read-fonts+agl-devel: crate(read-fonts/agl) rust-read-fonts+agl-devel rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel: crate(read-fonts/codegen_test) rust-read-fonts+codegen_test-devel rust-read-fonts+libm-devel: crate(read-fonts/libm) rust-read-fonts+libm-devel rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel: crate(read-fonts/scaler_test) rust-read-fonts+scaler_test-devel rust-read-fonts+serde-devel: crate(read-fonts/serde) rust-read-fonts+serde-devel rust-read-fonts+std-devel: crate(read-fonts/std) rust-read-fonts+std-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2455091 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, R, Haskell, Python, C/C++ 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=2455091 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202455091%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ 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
