[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-62501907b8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-07-20 17:02:27 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-0399e40aa0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62501907b8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-opml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35819 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35820 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823
Jan Staněk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsta...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Jan Staněk ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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 without FPC exception.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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]: 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-
opml-devel , rust-opml+default-devel
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini --- > I would strongly prefer if you could rename the re-packaged crate in the > cleaning script. Good point, done. Same links. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823
--- Comment #7 from Jan Staněk ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #6)
> I have created a similar script that uses cargo to repackage the crate
> properly, which should also make sure no "vital" files are removed
> accidentally.
Fair enough, although I have one problem with it's current behaviour – after
the script is run, it produces the file of the same name as the original crate.
Two problems with that:
1. If you forget to run the gen_clean_tarball.sh, no-one will notice unless you
explicitly check the content; then we are back to accidentally shipping the
(arguably) non-free stuff.
2. When you do run the script, the hash of the original and the modified file
will differ, and fedora-review (and I suspect that other diligent enough
linters) will complain about it. Nothing that couldn't be waived, but still.
I would strongly prefer if you could rename the re-packaged crate in the
cleaning script (`opml-%{version}-stripped.crate` or something like that), and
use `Source: %{name}-%{version}-stripped.crate` in the specfile (no
`%{crates_source}`).
That way you have to go through the script to get a new release tarball, and
you are explicit in stating that we do not ship the crate directly from the
upstream, but deliberately making changes to it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #4) > IANAL, but given that we ship the source RPMs as well (in *-sources repos), > removing during build might not be enough for the "not shipping" part. > Cleaning the tarballs is the safe option. That is a good argument. I have created a similar script that uses cargo to repackage the crate properly, which should also make sure no "vital" files are removed accidentally. I also updated the package to use the latest version 1.1.1, which fixes the missing license files compared to version 1.1.0. Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-opml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-opml-1.1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823
--- Comment #5 from Jan Staněk ---
Created attachment 1801536
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1801536=edit
Script to generate stripped crate
I threw together a quick shell script to fetch and clean the opml crate from
crates.io.
It queries the specfile for current version, then fetches the crate from the
CDN and removes the relevant files. At the end, it outputs
`opml-%{version}-stripped.crate`, which should be suitable for inclusion as
Source0.
Feel free to add this to the spec as additional Source file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 Jan Staněk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsta...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Jan Staněk --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Should I create "clean" source tarballs for this package instead, which > don't contain those files? > Or do you think it would be enough to remove them during the build so that > they are not shipped? IANAL, but given that we ship the source RPMs as well (in *-sources repos), removing during build might not be enough for the "not shipping" part. Cleaning the tarballs is the safe option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Looks like there's no conclusions on the legal list, but most people seemed to think that this license might not be acceptable. Should I create "clean" source tarballs for this package instead, which don't contain those files? Or do you think it would be enough to remove them during the build so that they are not shipped? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 Bug 1965823 depends on bug 1965822, which changed state. Bug 1965822 Summary: Review Request: rust-strong-xml - Strong typed xml, based on xmlparser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965822 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Good catch! Thanks for submitting the email for the legal list. Since the files under "tests/spec_samples/" are only used for integration tests, it would be easy to exclude them from built binary packages and only use them for the test suite. If it turns out it is not a permissible license for that purpose alone either, it should be easy to create a "clean" source tarball without those files, and just don't run the integration tests that need them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Include examples/ in %doc? - There is a weird tests/spec_samples/LICENSE file with: © Copyright 2000 UserLand Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved. © Copyright 2006-2007 Scripting News, Inc. All Rights Reserved. UserLand Software, Inc. and Scripting News, Inc. are refererred to in the following as "the Companies." This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and these paragraphs are included on all such copies and derivative works. This document may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Companies or other organizations. Further, while these copyright restrictions apply to the written OPML specification, no claim of ownership is made by the Companies to the format it describes. Any party may, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, implement this format without royalty or license fee to the Companies. The limited permissions granted herein are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Companies or their successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE COMPANIES DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. I don't know what license it is. Seems common on rfc like https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec21.html I've sent a mail to legal to weight on this. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6HN5VJKQU24ZXNUQ6E4LKZRH4AXNGAK7/ - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1965823] Review Request: rust-opml - OPML parser for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965823 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1938535 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938535 [Bug 1938535] rust-news-flash-1.2.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
