Bug 2291345

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7597081
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2291345-rust-pear/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07597081-rust-pear/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.

LGTM, the default `rust2rpm` was used and just tweaked the license files. Should be resolved in the next release. Could you include an empty `rust2rpm.toml` just to inform others that the default was used thus far?

---
(template review mixed from Robert and Fabio)

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

    [x] The latest version is packaged or packaging an earlier version is justified.
    [x] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct identifiers.
    [x] The package builds successfully in mock.
    [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review).
    [x] There are no relevant rpmlint errors.
    [x] The package runs tests in %check.
    [x] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution.
    [x] There are no %{_bindir}/* wildcards in %files.
    [x] The package complies with the Rust and general Packaging Guidelines.

---

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)

(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #2)
> Could you include an empty
> `rust2rpm.toml` just to inform others that the default was used thus far?

I cannot attach an empty file here. Bugzilla prevents this. I'm not sure how an empty file would be useful here. I don't see it in other approved packages. Could you elaborate?

BTW, you forgot to assign yourself to this bug?

> BTW, you forgot to assign yourself to this bug?

Thanks, didn't know the changing the status didn't change that as well.

> I cannot attach an empty file here.

Sorry, I wanted to say to add it in the final repo.

> I'm not sure how an empty file would be useful here. I don't see it in other approved packages. Could you elaborate?

Not common, but it helps indicate that a default rust2rpm was used, and if this changes in future package bumps, than it can help keep track of that change. Technically the changes of the license files could be added in the `rust2rpm.toml` minus addressing the FIXME part, but maybe not worth it since it's already merged.

(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #4)
> > BTW, you forgot to assign yourself to this bug?
> 
> Thanks, didn't know the changing the status didn't change that as well.

No problem. I forgot it once too :)

> > I cannot attach an empty file here.
> 
> Sorry, I wanted to say to add it in the final repo.

Ok.

> > I'm not sure how an empty file would be useful here. I don't see it in other approved packages. Could you elaborate?
> 
> Not common, but it helps indicate that a default rust2rpm was used, and if
> this changes in future package bumps, than it can help keep track of that
> change. Technically the changes of the license files could be added in the
> `rust2rpm.toml` minus addressing the FIXME part, but maybe not worth it
> since it's already merged.

Could you relax on that requirement? I see a similar package committed recently at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-zune-core It also adds the licenses missing in the crate and no empty rust2rpm.toml there. I just don't want to do any extra work and stand out from what proven packagers package.

> Could you relax on that requirement?

Sure, it's just a suggestion. I had to temporarily update a few rust packages in a copr project in order to package some other dependent packages, and I've found that having a `rust2rpm.toml` even if empty was useful there. Otherwise I've resorted to reading the spec file for clues if a `rust2rpm.conf` or `rust2rpm.toml` was used but not packaged (saw that quite a few times).

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pear

FEDORA-2024-8dc4c0a175 (rust-pear-0.2.9-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8dc4c0a175

FEDORA-2024-8dc4c0a175 (rust-pear-0.2.9-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Everything's done. Thanks for the review!