Spec URL: https://sohank2602.fedorapeople.org/rust-rspec/rust-rspec.spec SRPM URL: https://sohank2602.fedorapeople.org/rust-rspec-1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Write Rspec-like tests with stable rust Fedora Account System Username: sohank2602
Please don't assign bugs without asking first. Doing that also hides it on the list of new package review tickets, making it even less likely for somebody to even see the bug. That said: The .spec file behind the direct and inside the linked SRPM differ. The email address in the changelog entry is different and the %license LICENSE file is missing in one version. Additionally, the subpackage for the optional +clippy feature does not install successfully (because clippy is not packaged as a standalone crate in Fedora). Please remove the +clippy subpackage. To mark the clippy feature as an "unwanted" feature permanently, you can add a .rust2rpm.conf file like this to the package later: [DEFAULT] unwanted-features = clippy
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1) > Please don't assign bugs without asking first. > Doing that also hides it on the list of new package review tickets, making > it even less likely for somebody to even see the bug. Thanks for the information. I will keep it in mind. > That said: The .spec file behind the direct and inside the linked SRPM > differ. > The email address in the changelog entry is different and the %license > LICENSE file is missing in one version. > > Additionally, the subpackage for the optional +clippy feature does not > install successfully (because clippy is not packaged as a standalone crate > in Fedora). > Please remove the +clippy subpackage. > I've fixed this in the latest push. Please let me know if the new changes look good.
I missed another issue last time: The "expectest" feature also will not install. You'll need to either - package expectest ^0.12 for Fedora, or - drop the +expectest subpackage, like the +clippy subpackage. However, it would be good to check whether the package that uses rspec actually uses the optional "expectest" feature or not before deciding to drop it. :) Other than that, package looks good.
BTW: I trained myself to use mock's "--postinstall" feature to test this stuff locally. It will complain if there are missing dependencies.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > I missed another issue last time: > > The "expectest" feature also will not install. You'll need to either > - package expectest ^0.12 for Fedora, or > - drop the +expectest subpackage, like the +clippy subpackage. > ah, I see > However, it would be good to check whether the package that uses rspec > actually uses the optional "expectest" feature or not before deciding to > drop it. :) > Yup, it's an optional one. I made the necessary changes to address this concern, and also validate it with the mock's `--postinstall` feature. > BTW: I trained myself to use mock's "--postinstall" feature to test this stuff locally. It will complain if there are missing dependencies. Thanks for the pointers.
Looks good now. Package generated with rust2rpm, simplifying review: - package conforms to Rust Packaging Guidelines - latest version is packaged - package builds and installs without issues on rawhide - test suite is executed and passes - license matches upstream, is acceptable, and is shipped with %license TL;DR: APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rspec
The rawhide and f-34 builds are successfully created.