https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081385

--- Comment #2 from Anderson Sasaki ansasaki@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)

Have you really generated this .spec file with rust2rpm? The %license lines in %files do not match what's generated by the latest version.

Yes, I used rust2rpm. The difference was because of missing license files on version 0.1.2 which I reported upstream via:

https://github.com/actix/actix-net/issues/456

That resulted on a #fixme line which I modified manually. The crate was then updated to version 0.1.3 which included the missing license files, but I did not re-generate the spec file using rust2rpm.

I'll re-generate the spec file and run another build on Copr.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081385

Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks, looks good to me now.

===

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 ASL 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

===

Please remember to always regenerate Rust .spec files for new crate versions with rust2rpm. This ensures that the mapping between generated subpackages and cargo features stays correct. Otherwise you might end up with subpackages for features that no longer exist (leading to broken packages) or missing subpackages for added features (leading to broken dependencies).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081385

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-47c9f8aefa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-47c9f8aefa

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081385

--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Please also build this package on Fedora 36.

Otherwise I won't be able to update the Actix stack there, and the keylime-rust package will stay broken.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081385

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a69bd39192 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a69bd39192

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081385

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a69bd39192 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.