https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176200
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.
- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide - test suite is run and all unit tests pass - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification (MIT OR Apache-2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora - license files are included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines
Package APPROVED.
===
Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
- set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate
- track package in koschei for all built branches
===
I think this is your first Rust package? Just a general word of advice: Due to peculiarities of how Rust packaging works, it is necessary to re-generate spec files with rust2rpm for every new version of a crate. For example, the list of "+feature-devel" subpackages needs to be kept in sync with "features" from upstream metadata in Cargo.toml. rpmautospec helps with this (because you don't need to take care to preserve changelog etc.).
As soon as the repository for rust-pbkdf2_0.9 is ready, I will build v0.10 and v0.9, and review the other two packages.