https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Bug ID: 1834947 Summary: Review Request: rust-desed - sed script debugger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@svgames.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-1/rust-desed.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-1/rust-desed-1.1.4-1.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44422224
Description: desed is a debugger for sed scripts that allows you to inspect them and demistify their inner workings.
Fedora Account System Username: suve
This is my first time packaging Rust stuff, so please forgive me if I made some obvious mistakes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |igor.raits@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |igor.raits@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- Hi Artur,
Sorry for not getting to this review earlier. Just one question, was there a reason to modify auto-generated spec except of the %license/%doc and some description?
License: GPLv3
I think it should be rather GPLv3+, but I am not sure. Can you clarify it with upstream?
Other than that, it seems Requires: sed is missing.
Otherwise, LGTM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
Just one question, was there a reason to modify auto-generated spec except of the %license/%doc and some description?
Not really. I guess after writing most specs by hand, personal preferences got all tingly when confronted with the auto-generated one.
License: GPLv3
I think it should be rather GPLv3+, but I am not sure. Can you clarify it with upstream?
Asked upstream, they confirmed it to be GPLv3-or-later: https://github.com/SoptikHa2/desed/issues/16
Other than that, it seems Requires: sed is missing.
D'oh! You're right, having sed installed would be quite useful for this package.
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-2/rust-desed.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-2/rust-desed-1.1.4-2.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44501146
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com ---
Not really. I guess after writing most specs by hand, personal preferences got all tingly when confronted with the auto-generated one.
We (rust-sig) are usually, when updating rust stuff, just regenerate spec and using `git add -p` to just commit changes which are not done manually (like adding %license), so this would be inconvenient each time new version is released :)
Asked upstream, they confirmed it to be GPLv3-or-later: https://github.com/SoptikHa2/desed/issues/16
Great, thanks!
Licensing is correct, spec is auto-generated, nothing suspicious. APPROVED.
Please let me know if you are fine that I will add @rust-sig as default BZ assignee and into the maintainers list.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |rust-desed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
--- Comment #4 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
We (rust-sig) are usually, when updating rust stuff, just regenerate spec and using `git add -p` to just commit changes
Well yeah, if the preferred workflow is something semi-automated like this, then it makes sense to keep the spec as close to the auto-generated one as possible. I'll keep this in mind if I ever need to package Rust stuff again.
Please let me know if you are fine that I will add @rust-sig as default BZ assignee and into the maintainers list.
Sure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
--- Comment #5 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #4)
We (rust-sig) are usually, when updating rust stuff, just regenerate spec and using `git add -p` to just commit changes
Well yeah, if the preferred workflow is something semi-automated like this, then it makes sense to keep the spec as close to the auto-generated one as possible. I'll keep this in mind if I ever need to package Rust stuff again.
Hopefully soon, the spec will look like:
Version: 1.2.3 Type: crate
and it will do all the stuff behind the scene :)
We are aiming to automate generation of subpackages in RPM upstream, though it can take months until this will be done.
Please let me know if you are fine that I will add @rust-sig as default BZ assignee and into the maintainers list.
Sure.
Cool, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
--- Comment #6 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-desed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c
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=1834947
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6
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=1834947
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834947
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd
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=1834947
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-11-02 01:10:39
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org