Bug 2210575 - Review Request: rust-gix-date - Parse dates the way git does
Summary: Review Request: rust-gix-date - Parse dates the way git does
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fabio Valentini
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-05-28 18:49 UTC by blinxen
Modified: 2023-06-06 19:19 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-06-04 22:57:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
decathorpe: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description blinxen 2023-05-28 18:49:45 UTC
Spec URL: https://blinxen.fedorapeople.org/gix-date/rust-gix-date.spec
SRPM URL: https://blinxen.fedorapeople.org/gix-date/rust-gix-date-0.5.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: A WIP crate of the gitoxide project parsing dates the way git does.
Fedora Account System Username: blinxen

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-04 18:15:34 UTC
The package builds fine, but one of the optional dependencies is missing and makes one of the built packages fail to install:

Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides (crate(document-features/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(document-features/default) < 0.3.0~) needed by rust-gix-date+document-features-devel-0.5.0-1.fc39.noarch

The document-features crate / feature is pretty useless for RPM builds since we don't build documentation for Rust crates.

I would recommend to resolve this by removing the folling from Cargo.toml with a patch:

-[dependencies.document-features]
-version = "0.2.0"
-optional = true

The generated spec file should no longer have a rust-gix-date+document-features-devel subpackage.

Comment 2 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-04 18:17:38 UTC
You might also want to trim the Summary to improve its "information density", something like "Parse dates the way git does".

Comment 3 blinxen 2023-06-04 21:16:32 UTC
> The document-features crate / feature is pretty useless for RPM builds since we don't build documentation for Rust crates.

Makes sense. I removed the feature.

I updated the spec file and summary. I also updated the summary of the other crates that I submitted for review that also have a "WIP" in their summary.

Comment 4 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-04 21:26:33 UTC
Thanks, looks good to me now!

===

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 (MIT OR Apache-2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora
- license files are included with %license in %files (manually included from upstream repo)
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer

- 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
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- track package in koschei for all built branches

===

If you have time, it would be great if we could trade reviews ... I have a few Rust packages pending as well. :)

Comment 5 blinxen 2023-06-04 22:35:06 UTC
Thanks for the review!

> If you have time, it would be great if we could trade reviews ... I have a few Rust packages pending as well. :)

Sure thing, will take a look tomorrow.

Comment 6 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-06-04 22:36:38 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-gix-date

Comment 7 blinxen 2023-06-04 22:57:10 UTC
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f97d5d4bf6

Comment 8 Fabio Valentini 2023-06-06 18:58:16 UTC
Can you update to version 0.5.1?
It includes the PR to include the license files.

Not sure why release monitoring didn't file a bug for the new version ... maybe the package was too new and it didn't detect an "old" version to compare with.

Comment 9 blinxen 2023-06-06 19:19:24 UTC
> Can you update to version 0.5.1?

Thanks for notifying!

> Not sure why release monitoring didn't file a bug for the new version ... maybe the package was too new and it didn't detect an "old" version to compare with.

Yeah, not sure what went wrong there. That's why I use my own "version checker" [1] :D.


[1] https://github.com/blinxen/fedtools/blob/main/src/fedtools/check_upstream_versions.py


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