[Bug 2117954] New: Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
Bug ID: 2117954 Summary: Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: stuart@gathman.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-signature.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-signature-1.5.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms (e.g. ECDSA, Ed25519) Fedora Account System Username: sdgathman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This package still is not installable after the build due to the same broken dependencies that got it orphaned / retired in the first place: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006269
Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides crate(signature_derive/default) = 1.0.0~pre.4 needed by rust-signature+signature_derive-devel-1.5.0-1.fc37.noarch Problem 2: package rust-signature+derive-preview-devel-1.5.0-1.fc37.noarch requires crate(signature/signature_derive) = 1.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides crate(signature_derive/default) = 1.0.0~pre.4 needed by rust-signature+signature_derive-devel-1.5.0-1.fc37.noarch
I recommend that you use "--postinstall" argument for mock when you build packages locally to catch such problems early.
There are two options to solve this:
1. disable the (disabled-by-default) derive feature and remove the (optional) signature_derive dependency.
This assumes that the package you want to package the "signature" crate for does not actually *use* this feature.
2. package the signature_derive crate.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
--- Comment #2 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org --- I went with #2 since rust2rpm output seems to work out of the box. bz#2118080
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2121490
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490 [Bug 2121490] Review Request: rust-sodiumoxide - Fast cryptographic library for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Please update to the latest release (1.6.4 as of time of writing) and refresh the packaging with rust2rpm v22.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
--- Comment #4 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org --- Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-signature.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-signature-1.6.4-1.fc37.src.rpm
Are these warnings normal? RPM build warnings: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/signature-1.6.4/CHANGELOG.md File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/signature-1.6.4/LICENSE-APACHE File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/signature-1.6.4/LICENSE-MIT File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/signature-1.6.4/README.md
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Yes, these warnings are harmless, and can be ignored. The built packages will contain the correct files, and the correct files will be marked as %doc and %license, respectively. This change was implemented in rust2rpm to make RPM packages for Rust crates smaller by not including these files twice.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
--- Comment #6 from Stuart D Gathman stuart@gathman.org --- I rebuilt with --postinstall after build new rust-signature_derive-1.0.0-pre.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954 Bug 2117954 depends on bug 2118090, which changed state.
Bug 2118090 Summary: Review Request: rust-signature_derive - Custom derive support for the 'signature' crate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118090
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 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 (there are no tests) - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) 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)
===
You can proceed with the package unretirement process now. Please also request unretirement for the f36 and f37 branches.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-05 13:19:51
--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- I resubmitted the failed rawhide build: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8c70c1eba4
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com