Bug 2153766

Summary:	Review Request: rust-cursive0.16 - TUI (Text User Interface) library focused on ease-of-use
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Michel Lind <michel>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	davide, decathorpe, package-review, ppisar
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	rust-cursive0.16-0.16.3-3.fc36	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-02-03 14:00:24 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:	2153797
Bug Blocks:	2039060

Description Michel Lind 2022-12-15 11:57:16 UTC

Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-cursive0.16.spec
SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-cursive0.16-0.16.3-1.fc37.src.rpm

Description:
TUI (Text User Interface) library focused on ease-of-use.

Fedora Account System Username: salimma

Comment 1 Michel Lind 2022-12-15 11:58:10 UTC

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95395643

This is needed to update rust-cursive which is needed to update below-common, since rust-resctl-demo still requires the older version

Comment 2 Davide Cavalca 2022-12-15 12:01:07 UTC

This is missing license files

Comment 3 Michel Lind 2022-12-15 13:27:39 UTC

Updated: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95398337

Same spec and SRPM

Comment 4 Fabio Valentini 2022-12-15 14:07:34 UTC

Package review isn't strictly necessary for compat packages, but looks good to me.
I assume you used "rust2rpm cursive 0.16.3 --suffix 0.16" to create the spec?

The only suggestion I have is to use 
%license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE
instead of plain
%license LICENSE
so that the file is not included twice in the built packages.

Do you want me to formally review and approve the package?

Comment 5 Michel Lind 2022-12-15 14:16:09 UTC

I did, thanks. And good point, reviews are not necessary, though seems this caught a couple of things so it works out! I think Davide is doing the formal review

Comment 6 Michel Lind 2022-12-15 14:31:46 UTC

Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49880