Bug 2352566

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8768874
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2352566-rust-siguldry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08768874-rust-siguldry/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.

For context, I'd like this as it's now a dependency of sigul-pesign-bridge, which I'm working on packaging in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2343280

Taking this review.

Package looks mostly good, just two minor issues:

1.

> # prevent executables from being installed
> %global cargo_install_bin 0

This is a noop.
You're already patching out the only [[bin]] target with the Cargo.toml patch, so I would recommend to drop those two lines.

2.

The file src/serdes/serde.py has a GPLv2 license header, which doesn't match the MIT license of the crate.
It looks like it is only used for testing compatibility with the Python implementation, so I would recommend to %exclude it from the "-devel" package,
i.e. add this line below "%{crate_instdir}/":

%exclude %{crate_instdir}/src/serdes/serde.py

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3)
> Taking this review.
> 
> Package looks mostly good, just two minor issues:
> 
> 1.
> 
> > # prevent executables from being installed
> > %global cargo_install_bin 0
> 
> This is a noop.
> You're already patching out the only [[bin]] target with the Cargo.toml
> patch, so I would recommend to drop those two lines.

Ah, thanks. This was leftover from before I opted to patch out the bin target, as even if I hid the feature flag it required rust2rpm was still generating a cargo build command with `-f client-cli`. I've dropped this.

> 
> 2.
> 
> The file src/serdes/serde.py has a GPLv2 license header, which doesn't match
> the MIT license of the crate.
> It looks like it is only used for testing compatibility with the Python
> implementation, so I would recommend to %exclude it from the "-devel"
> package,
> i.e. add this line below "%{crate_instdir}/":
> 
> %exclude %{crate_instdir}/src/serdes/serde.py

Good catch, indeed. Fixed.

Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-siguldry.spec
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/new-packages/rust-siguldry-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

Looks good to me now, thank you!

===

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

✅ package contains only permissible content
✅ 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
✅ 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 (*NOT* pre-release filter): alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

Created attachment 2080272 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8768874 to 8769334

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8769334
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2352566-rust-siguldry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08769334-rust-siguldry/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.

This was imported and built:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9f05ca5974

Not sure why there was no comment when the repo was created.