Bug 2268045

The ticket summary is not in the correct format.
Expected:

    Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>

Found:

    Review Request: rust-atoi 2.0.0 for f39

As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to
be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a
build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].


---
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://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

[fedora-review-service-build]

Spec URL: https://github.com/adammccartney/rust-atoi-rpm/releases/download/2.0.0/rust-atoi.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/adammccartney/rust-atoi-rpm/releases/download/2.0.0/rust-atoi-2.0.0-2.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7109472
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268045-rust-atoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07109472-rust-atoi/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7109476
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268045-rust-atoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07109476-rust-atoi/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Why is the Summary in the bug's title so long and doesn't match the package Summary?
> Parse integers directly from [u8] slices in safe code

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7)
> Why is the Summary in the bug's title so long and doesn't match the package
> Summary?
> > Parse integers directly from [u8] slices in safe code

Yeah, your right that is much more succinct. I copied the other longer version from the upstream package description on crates.io.

Thank you, looks good to me now! Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.

Consider adding a comment line above the Patch in the spec file, something like

"""
# Manually created patch for downstream crate metadata changes
# * drop unused, benchmark-only criterion dev-dependency
Patch:          atoi-fix-metadata.diff
"""

(This is the boilerplate I use in all other Rust packages for cases like this.)

===

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
- licenses of statically linked dependencies are correctly taken into account
- 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)

===

Spec URL: https://github.com/adammccartney/rust-atoi-rpm/releases/download/2.0.0/rust-atoi.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/adammccartney/rust-atoi-rpm/releases/download/2.0.0/rust-atoi-2.0.0-2.fc39.src.rpm

Hi Fabio,

thanks for the info. So I updated the spec file with your suggested comment.
I'm a bit unclear about the next steps, I tried to create a repo for the package using the `fedpkg request-repo` command as per the docs [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/]

Which resulted in the following error:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62109

> Which resulted in the following error:
> https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62109

Yes, this is expected if you have not yet been sponsored into the "packager" group yet.

Please follow the steps outlined here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #12)

> Yes, this is expected if you have not yet been sponsored into the "packager"
> group yet.
> 
> Please follow the steps outlined here:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/
> Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/

Aha, thanks for pointing me to this again. I had slightly misunderstood and thought that contacting 
a prospective sponsor was enough to get sponsored. I've made a request for sponsorship here:
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/655

I mentioned you in the description as a prospective sponsor, I hope that you don't mind? (Probably 
should have asked first!)

Hi Adam, do you want to go ahead with packaging this?

All the sponsorship bureaucracy has been dealt with two months ago.

It would be great if you could continue with importing this package, other thing are also blocked by this.

If you don't have time to do this right now, would it be OK if somebody else continued your work here?

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #15)
> All the sponsorship bureaucracy has been dealt with two months ago.
> 
> It would be great if you could continue with importing this package, other
> thing are also blocked by this.
> 
> If you don't have time to do this right now, would it be OK if somebody else
> continued your work here?

Hi Fabio,

apologies, I must have missed the reply to Christian Le above somehow. 
Yeah so from my side, I'm quite busy with family stuff at the moment, 
so it's tough to find the time. I'm quite happy to hand off the work to
someone else at this stage.

Thanks Adam for the quick reply. I am taking over this package in that case over at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310831

Hope things go well with your family stuff :)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2310831 ***