https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
Bug ID: 2181036 Summary: Review Request: rust-vm-fdt - For writing Flattened Devicetree blobs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora.dm0@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-vm-fdt.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dm0-/copr-firecracker/raw/fedora/rust-vm-fdt-0.2.0-1.fc37... Description: Crate for writing Flattened Devicetree blobs. Fedora Account System Username: dm0
This is a dependency of Firecracker. The spec is automatically generated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://crates.io/crates/vm | |-fdt
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5696287 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Non-blocking request for improvement:
The crate includes a few files that are not really necessary:
- the "/img/" folder - the files "/CODEOWNERS", "/coverage_config.json", "/coverage_config_x86_64.json"
Consider adding the following setting to the [package] table in Cargo.toml:
``` exclude = [ "/img/", "/CODEOWNERS", "/coverage_config.json", "/coverage_config_x86_64.json", ] ```
===
Other than that:
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 (Apache-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #3 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- The README links to the img file, should I flag it as documentation instead of removing it to avoid a broken reference?
A few of these crates include CODEOWNERS, should they all be patched to exclude it? (In that case, it seems common enough, should I update rust2rpm to exclude it automatically?)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #4 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- And similarly, it looks like many of the crates include coverage files. Should they all be patched?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com ---
The README links to the img file, should I flag it as documentation instead of removing it to avoid a broken reference?
That's an option. However, there is zero places where users would actually see rendered README files for this package, so removing the image wouldn't make a difference either.
And similarly, it looks like many of the crates include coverage files. Should they all be patched?
It's certainly nicer if these files aren't included in our packages, but they aren't harmful. On the other hand, the upstream projects might even be happy about patches (to add "exclude" to Cargo.toml) that make downloads of their crates from crates.io smaller / faster for everyone? :)
Either way, neither the image, nor CODEOWNERS, nor coverage data is "harmful", but they are also just bloat. You can remove them, but you don't *have* to.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #6 from fedora.dm0@gmail.com --- I've updated this package to drop CODEOWNERS and coverage_config* files and to flag additional files as documentation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-vm-fdt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6fa0824490 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6fa0824490
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-25 14:27:01
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6fa0824490 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1ee180e753 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1ee180e753
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-aedcdb28f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-aedcdb28f5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-aedcdb28f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-aedcdb28f5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-aedcdb28f5
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1ee180e753 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1ee180e753
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1ee180e753 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181036
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-aedcdb28f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org