Bug 2283517 - Review Request: rust-plex - Syntax extension for writing lexers and parsers
Summary: Review Request: rust-plex - Syntax extension for writing lexers and parsers
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fabio Valentini
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://crates.io/crates/plex
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-05-27 15:16 UTC by wojnilowicz
Modified: 2024-06-08 09:30 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-06-08 09:29:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
decathorpe: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description wojnilowicz 2024-05-27 15:16:44 UTC
Spec URL: https://wojnilowicz.fedorapeople.org/rust-plex.spec
SRPM URL: https://wojnilowicz.fedorapeople.org/rust-plex-0.3.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Description:
A syntax extension for writing lexers and parsers.

Fedora Account System Username: wojnilowicz

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2024-06-04 16:26:40 UTC
Some minor issues:

- If you apply patches to Cargo.toml, please use "rust2rpm -p". It is the only supported mechanism for doing so.

- Please add some kind of comment, and if possible, link to upstream commit / PR for the redfa bump.

Comment 2 wojnilowicz 2024-06-04 16:57:11 UTC
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> Some minor issues:
> 
> - If you apply patches to Cargo.toml, please use "rust2rpm -p". It is the
> only supported mechanism for doing so.

Done.

> - Please add some kind of comment, and if possible, link to upstream commit
> / PR for the redfa bump.

I've added a comment explaining why I did so. There is no upstream commit. plex was updated 8 and redfa 6 months ago, so the newer redfa had no chance to be included in the current plex. We could bump the version ourselves as I did or I could request redfa0.0.2 (which is 7 years old) and package it just like the current plex requires. What do you think we should do?

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-06-04 17:11:42 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7529159
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2283517-rust-plex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07529159-rust-plex/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.

Comment 4 Fabio Valentini 2024-06-04 17:19:41 UTC
> I've added a comment explaining why I did so. There is no upstream commit. plex was updated 8 and redfa 6 months ago, so the newer redfa had no chance to be included in the current plex.

Thanks!

In that case, it's usually good to submit a pull request to the upstream project.

I'll take another look at the package later today. You don't need to NEEDINFO me.

Comment 5 wojnilowicz 2024-06-04 19:19:57 UTC
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4)
> > I've added a comment explaining why I did so. There is no upstream commit. plex was updated 8 and redfa 6 months ago, so the newer redfa had no chance to be included in the current plex.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> In that case, it's usually good to submit a pull request to the upstream
> project.

FYI, https://github.com/goffrie/plex/pull/56 already got merged and I've updated the spec file.

> I'll take another look at the package later today. You don't need to
> NEEDINFO me.

OK, sorry and thanks.

Comment 6 Fabio Valentini 2024-06-04 22:22:58 UTC
Great! Looks like upstream already published a new version (0.3.1) that contains the redfa 0.0.2 -> 0.0.3 bump.
Can you update the package to the new version? It would allow you to drop the patch entirely.

Comment 7 wojnilowicz 2024-06-05 15:08:00 UTC
That's what I did :)

Comment 8 Fabio Valentini 2024-06-07 14:05:28 UTC
Oh, I didn't notice. Editing comments is ... weird in bugzilla.

I'll re-run the review.

Comment 9 Fabio Valentini 2024-06-07 14:16:53 UTC
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)

Comment 10 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-06-08 09:11:07 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-plex

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2024-06-08 09:25:06 UTC
FEDORA-2024-523210754f (rust-plex-0.3.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-523210754f

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2024-06-08 09:29:22 UTC
FEDORA-2024-523210754f (rust-plex-0.3.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 wojnilowicz 2024-06-08 09:30:28 UTC
Thanks for the review.


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