Bug 1834947 (rust-desed) - Review Request: rust-desed - sed script debugger
Summary: Review Request: rust-desed - sed script debugger
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: rust-desed
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Igor Raits
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-05-12 18:09 UTC by Artur Frenszek-Iwicki
Modified: 2020-11-02 01:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-02 01:10:39 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
igor.raits: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2020-05-12 18:09:49 UTC
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-1/rust-desed.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-1/rust-desed-1.1.4-1.fc32.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44422224

Description: desed is a debugger for sed scripts that allows you to inspect them and demistify their inner workings.

Fedora Account System Username: suve


This is my first time packaging Rust stuff, so please forgive me if I made some obvious mistakes.

Comment 1 Igor Raits 2020-05-14 16:01:11 UTC
Hi Artur,

Sorry for not getting to this review earlier. Just one question, was there a reason to modify auto-generated spec except of the %license/%doc and some description?

> License:        GPLv3
I think it should be rather GPLv3+, but I am not sure. Can you clarify it with upstream?

Other than that, it seems Requires: sed is missing.

Otherwise, LGTM.

Comment 2 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2020-05-14 22:53:16 UTC
>Just one question, was there a reason to modify auto-generated spec except of the %license/%doc and some description?
Not really. I guess after writing most specs by hand, personal preferences got all tingly when confronted with the auto-generated one.

>> License:        GPLv3
>I think it should be rather GPLv3+, but I am not sure. Can you clarify it with upstream?
Asked upstream, they confirmed it to be GPLv3-or-later: https://github.com/SoptikHa2/desed/issues/16

>Other than that, it seems Requires: sed is missing.
D'oh! You're right, having sed installed would be quite useful for this package.


spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-2/rust-desed.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/rust-desed-1.1.4-2/rust-desed-1.1.4-2.fc32.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44501146

Comment 3 Igor Raits 2020-05-15 05:20:15 UTC
> Not really. I guess after writing most specs by hand, personal preferences got all tingly when confronted with the auto-generated one.
We (rust-sig) are usually, when updating rust stuff, just regenerate spec and using `git add -p` to just commit changes which are not done manually (like adding %license), so this would be inconvenient each time new version is released :)

> Asked upstream, they confirmed it to be GPLv3-or-later: https://github.com/SoptikHa2/desed/issues/16
Great, thanks!

Licensing is correct, spec is auto-generated, nothing suspicious. APPROVED.

Please let me know if you are fine that I will add @rust-sig as default BZ assignee and into the maintainers list.

Comment 4 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2020-05-15 05:31:22 UTC
>We (rust-sig) are usually, when updating rust stuff, just regenerate spec and using `git add -p` to just commit changes
Well yeah, if the preferred workflow is something semi-automated like this, then it makes sense to keep the spec as close to the auto-generated one as possible. I'll keep this in mind if I ever need to package Rust stuff again.

>Please let me know if you are fine that I will add @rust-sig as default BZ assignee and into the maintainers list.
Sure.

Comment 5 Igor Raits 2020-05-15 05:38:21 UTC
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #4)
> >We (rust-sig) are usually, when updating rust stuff, just regenerate spec and using `git add -p` to just commit changes
> Well yeah, if the preferred workflow is something semi-automated like this,
> then it makes sense to keep the spec as close to the auto-generated one as
> possible. I'll keep this in mind if I ever need to package Rust stuff again.
Hopefully soon, the spec will look like:

Version: 1.2.3
Type: crate

and it will do all the stuff behind the scene :)

We are aiming to automate generation of subpackages in RPM upstream, though it can take months until this will be done.

> 
> >Please let me know if you are fine that I will add @rust-sig as default BZ assignee and into the maintainers list.
> Sure.
Cool, thanks!

Comment 6 Igor Raits 2020-05-15 05:39:01 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-desed

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-05-15 13:33:43 UTC
FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-05-15 13:33:44 UTC
FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2020-05-16 04:44:15 UTC
FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f0df69576c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2020-05-16 05:06:54 UTC
FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d9330c5d6

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2020-10-24 07:35:19 UTC
FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2020-10-25 02:25:43 UTC
FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2020-11-02 01:10:39 UTC
FEDORA-2020-bbc06105dd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.