https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
Bug ID: 1836617 Summary: Review Request: rust-pommes - Project object model model (and parser using serde) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: igor.raits@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes-0.0.1-1.fc33.... Description: Project object model model (and parser using serde). Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Taking this review (I'm the upstream developer, after all).
I see two issues right now:
- subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match - no License tag for the binary subpackage that contains the effective license for the binary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
--- Comment #2 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes-0.0.1-1.fc33....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
--- Comment #3 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com ---
- subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match
Not really, I think it is better to call it pommes, because that is how people would theoretically install it via cargo: `cargo install pommes` would give them mvn-genbr.
- no License tag for the binary subpackage that contains the effective license for the binary
I had this done locally, but seems forgot updating remove spec. Done now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- (In reply to Igor Raits from comment #3)
- subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match
Not really, I think it is better to call it pommes, because that is how people would theoretically install it via cargo: `cargo install pommes` would give them mvn-genbr.
I was thinking more along the lines of "BuildRequires: mvn-genbr", which makes a lot more sense than "BuildRequires: pommes" when you want mvn-genbr for your build.
- no License tag for the binary subpackage that contains the effective license for the binary
I had this done locally, but seems forgot updating remove spec. Done now.
Great, will do the complete review shortly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
--- Comment #5 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4)
(In reply to Igor Raits from comment #3)
- subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match
Not really, I think it is better to call it pommes, because that is how people would theoretically install it via cargo: `cargo install pommes` would give them mvn-genbr.
I was thinking more along the lines of "BuildRequires: mvn-genbr", which makes a lot more sense than "BuildRequires: pommes" when you want mvn-genbr for your build.
I think the best would be to have BuildRequires: java-packaging / mvn-packaging / whatsoever-more-generic which will pull pommes (and I guess more things like maven) so that user won't have to careabout this at all. also probably it would worth having some macros around that in there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably.
- Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - package successfully builds in rawhide - license correct, and correctly set for the binary subpackage too
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
--- Comment #7 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pommes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-89e7f2e3cd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-89e7f2e3cd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836617
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-05-18 02:44:07
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-89e7f2e3cd has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org