https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
Bug ID: 2245151 Summary: Review Request: rust-mdsh - Markdown shell pre-processor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: h-k-81@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://blinxen.fedorapeople.org/rust-mdsh/rust-mdsh.spec SRPM URL: https://blinxen.fedorapeople.org/rust-mdsh/rust-mdsh-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: Markdown shell pre-processor.
Fedora Account System Username: blinxen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
--- Comment #1 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107784682
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6548996 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2245151
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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Quick comment:
# (MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND Unicode-DFS-2016 # Apache-2.0 OR MIT # MIT # MIT OR Apache-2.0 # Unlicense OR MIT # LICENSE.dependencies contains a full license breakdown License: MIT AND Unicode-DFS-2016
This is not correct according to the latest guidance from Red Hat Legal. It is not "valid" to subsume "OR" expressions like this.
The correct expression would be:
License: MIT AND Unicode-DFS-2016 AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Unlicense OR MIT)
(At least "A OR B" and "B OR A" are equivalent, so you can just include one of them. I usually choose the one that sorts first alphabetically.)
Other than that, package looks pretty good.
===
Quick tip: If you do not want to package the "library interface" (does not look like this is intended to be used via Rust API anyway), you could add this at the top of the spec file:
%global __cargo_is_lib() 0
And remove all the "-devel" subpackages in the spec file.
That would make the patch obsolete, since the files are no longer installed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
--- Comment #4 from blinxen h-k-81@hotmail.com ---
This is not correct according to the latest guidance from Red Hat Legal. It is not "valid" to subsume "OR" expressions like this.
Fixed
Quick tip: If you do not want to package the "library interface" (does not look like this is intended to be used via Rust API anyway), you could add this at the top of the spec file:
+1
Links to the updated files: SRPM URL: https://blinxen.fedorapeople.org/rust-mdsh/rust-mdsh-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Spec URL: https://blinxen.fedorapeople.org/rust-mdsh/rust-mdsh.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks, looks good to me, with one exception:
%cargo_build %{cargo_license_summary} %{cargo_license} > LICENSE.dependencies %cargo_license_summary
Looks like you added the second %cargo_license_summary manually. Please drop it :)
===
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 (MIT) and is acceptable for Fedora - license tag for the binary is correct - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines
Package APPROVED.
===
Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:
- 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
- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically)
- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)
- track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-351f334824 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-351f334824
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-10-21 11:34:12
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-351f334824 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245151
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you for this! Just found it
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com