Spec URL: https://sohank2602.fedorapeople.org/rust-ignition-config/rust-ignition-config.spec SRPM URL: https://sohank2602.fedorapeople.org/rust-ignition-config/rust-ignition-config-0.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Data structures for reading/writing Ignition configs Fedora Account System Username: sohank2602 Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79767419
Taking this review.
You're missing a dependency: schemafy_lib. It leads to two of the subpackages not being installable: Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(schemafy_lib/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(schemafy_lib/default) < 0.7.0~) needed by rust-ignition-config+regenerate-devel-0.2.0-1.fc36.noarch Problem 2: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(schemafy_lib/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(schemafy_lib/default) < 0.7.0~) needed by rust-ignition-config+schemafy_lib-devel-0.2.0-1.fc36.noarch It looks like that is used to generate code from JSON schemas at build time? And if that's possible to regenerate generated sources during RPM builds, that should be done. Can you check if that's possible and works (turn on the "regenerate" feature by default with a Cargo.toml patch), i.e. adding ``` [features] default = ["regenerate"] ``` or by modifying the build.rs script such that the code for regenerating the sources is run whether the "regenerate" feature is enabled or not? If that does not work or is not possible, you can drop the "regenerate" feature and its optional dependencies (including "schemafy_lib").
"regenerate" is a development feature and isn't intended to be invoked by other crates. Regenerating the sources on every build could cause API incompatibility with upstream if there's version skew between upstream's pinned schemafy_lib and Fedora's. So I'd recommend dropping the feature and its deps.
Sounds good to me. Using "rust2rpm -p" to generate a small patch to remove the optional dependencies and the [features] section entirely should be enough.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4) > Sounds good to me. > > Using "rust2rpm -p" to generate a small patch to remove the optional > dependencies and the [features] section entirely should be enough. Thanks! As suggested, I have created a small patch (https://sohank2602.fedorapeople.org/rust-ignition-config/ignition-config-fix-metadata.diff) to address the issue and updated the specfile accordingly. Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79799566
Looks good to me, but please add a short descriptive comment between lines 16 and 17 of the .spec file, something like: # * disable development-only feature for regenerating sources === Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. - 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: - add package to rust-sig with "commit" access - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - 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 - track package in koschei for all built branches
Requested a git repo: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39335
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ignition-config
release-monitoring request: https://release-monitoring.org/project/241658/ Koschei package: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rust-ignition-config?
This bug should stay assigned to the approver, I believe.
(In reply to Benjamin Gilbert from comment #10) > This bug should stay assigned to the approver, I believe. Yes. Otherwise the dist-git repository request is closed as invalid. BTW, it looks like you also built the package for f35 and f34, but forgot to submit those builds to bodhi?
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #11) > (In reply to Benjamin Gilbert from comment #10) > > This bug should stay assigned to the approver, I believe. > > Yes. Otherwise the dist-git repository request is closed as invalid. > > BTW, it looks like you also built the package for f35 and f34, but forgot to > submit those builds to bodhi? ah, right F-35: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a9ed18c2c3 F-34: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e95cbf8a90
Thanks! Since this package is now already stable in rawhide, we can close this bug. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-01adcb8a03