Bug 1990649
| Summary: | Review Request: rust-linux_proc - Library to help reading the contents of /proc on linux | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Davide Cavalca <davide> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Fabio Valentini <decathorpe> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | decathorpe, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | decathorpe:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | rust-linux_proc-0.1.1-1.fc36 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-09-03 22:18:23 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1990930 | ||
|
Description
Davide Cavalca
2021-08-05 20:27:52 UTC
Side note: If you skip building the examples, you could drop the quicly dependency entirely, since the only place it's used is the example code and not in the library itself. Looking at quicly, the crate has not been updated since 2018, so I think it really would be better to just drop the example code from this package and not package abandoned software just so you can compile "useless" example code here. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-linux_proc/rust-linux_proc.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-linux_proc/rust-linux_proc-0.1.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - Drop unnecessay quicli dependency Looks good with one exception: There's no license texts for both Apache-2.0 or MIT licenses. For Apache-2.0, it's not a big problem, since there's only "the one version", but there's over 20 different "MIT License" variants. Please open an issue with upstream that the license files are missing in both the upstream git repo, and in published crates (in fact, both Apache-2.0 and MIT licenses require that redistributed sources include license texts!). This would involve including LICENSE-APACHE & LICENSE-MIT files in the git repo, and adding "LICENSE-*" to the list of "include"d files in upstream's Cargo.toml. Updated to address feedback. Changelog: - Backport https://github.com/derekdreery/linux_proc/pull/2 to clarify project license Since the Apache 2.0 license is standardized and the MIT license text in the Pull Request matches what's used by other Rust crates under the MIT license, this looks good to me. Final review: 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 and is acceptable for Fedora - license file is included with %license in %files (and changes submitted to upstream) - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. Consider removing the markdown markup from the package's Summary (backticks `) and from this bug's title, as they aren't rendered anywhere in the RPM ecosystem. Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-linux_proc 1990649 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36691 (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-linux_proc |