Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes-0.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Project object model model (and parser using serde). Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Taking this review (I'm the upstream developer, after all). I see two issues right now: - subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match - no License tag for the binary subpackage that contains the effective license for the binary
New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-pommes-0.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
> - subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match Not really, I think it is better to call it pommes, because that is how people would theoretically install it via cargo: `cargo install pommes` would give them mvn-genbr. > - no License tag for the binary subpackage that contains the effective license for the binary I had this done locally, but seems forgot updating remove spec. Done now.
(In reply to Igor Raits from comment #3) > > - subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match > Not really, I think it is better to call it pommes, because that is how > people would theoretically install it via cargo: `cargo install pommes` > would give them mvn-genbr. I was thinking more along the lines of "BuildRequires: mvn-genbr", which makes a lot more sense than "BuildRequires: pommes" when you want mvn-genbr for your build. > > - no License tag for the binary subpackage that contains the effective license for the binary > I had this done locally, but seems forgot updating remove spec. Done now. Great, will do the complete review shortly.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4) > (In reply to Igor Raits from comment #3) > > > - subpackage for the binary is called "pommes", but the binary name is "mvn-genbr", I think those two names should match > > Not really, I think it is better to call it pommes, because that is how > > people would theoretically install it via cargo: `cargo install pommes` > > would give them mvn-genbr. > > I was thinking more along the lines of "BuildRequires: mvn-genbr", which > makes a lot more sense than "BuildRequires: pommes" when you want mvn-genbr > for your build. I think the best would be to have BuildRequires: java-packaging / mvn-packaging / whatsoever-more-generic which will pull pommes (and I guess more things like maven) so that user won't have to careabout this at all. also probably it would worth having some macros around that in there.
Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - package successfully builds in rawhide - license correct, and correctly set for the binary subpackage too PACKAGE APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pommes
FEDORA-2020-89e7f2e3cd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-89e7f2e3cd
FEDORA-2020-89e7f2e3cd has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.