https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480
--- Comment #4 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #1)
> - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> Note: warning: File listed twice:
> /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT
> See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/#_duplicate_files
>
> This is a problem with rust2rpm and not necessarily something that can be
> fixed here.
>
> I suppose the best way to handle this for now would be to remove the license
> files and README from %{crate_instdir} in %install and just mark the relative
> paths with `%doc` and `%license` to install them in the usual locations.
This way of doing this was added on request: we need the license files to
present
in %{crate_instdir} because some packages may access them in there (e.g. to
show a
the README internally in help or something like that). So right now we say
something
like
%files
%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE
%{crate_instdir}/
I thought rpm would be smart enough to understand that all files in that
directory
should be packaged, except that one should tagged as license. Maybe there's
some
way to tell rpm that.
(But yeah, that's something to fix in rust2rpm.)
$ rpm -qdp
results/rust-print_bytes-devel-0.6.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/README.md
$ rpm -qLp results/rust-print_bytes-devel-0.6.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT
/usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/LICENSE-APACHE
/usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/LICENSE-MIT
It still works, but I think it's still worth fixing. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103367#c5.
> [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are
otherwise
> justified.
> NOTE: rust2rpm -p should probably give a more descriptive comment
> than "# Initial patched metadata", but oh well.
Ack. It should at least say if it was generated automatically or by the
maintainer.
Yeah, and it should also clarify that this is a downstream only patch that's
not applicable upstream.
Thanks!
Sure, no problem!
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480