Spec URL: https://wojnilowicz.fedorapeople.org/rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics.spec SRPM URL: https://wojnilowicz.fedorapeople.org/rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics-0.10.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Diagnostics for proc-macro2 Fedora Account System Username: wojnilowicz I plan on packaging https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-server-rust and proc-macro2-diagnostics package is in its requirements chain. The chain is as follows: aw-server-rust->rocket->rocket_http->pear->pear_codegen->proc-macro2-diagnostics. The package depends on rust-yansi-1.0.x which is not yet packaged at this version for Fedora. Reproducible: Always
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7436952 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2276696-rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07436952-rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Why did you manually change the %description here? > -%{summary}} > +Diagnostics for proc-macro2.} This is 1) not really the same thing and 2) will cause unnecessary work when updating this package. Other than that, package looks good to me.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Why did you manually change the %description here? > > > -%{summary}} > > +Diagnostics for proc-macro2.} > > This is 1) not really the same thing and 2) will cause unnecessary work when > updating this package. > > Other than that, package looks good to me. I just came to the same conclusion later. It's one of my first packages. The change in the %description field is just a leftover. Anyway, I've just changed it back. Could you approve now?
Yes, looks good to me! === 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 files are included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - 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 - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics
Everything done. Thanks.
FEDORA-2024-6a3aa332cc (rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics-0.10.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6a3aa332cc
FEDORA-2024-6a3aa332cc (rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics-0.10.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.