Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/rust-gst-plugin-ndi.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/rust-gst-plugin-ndi-0.13.4-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: GStreamer NewTek NDI plugin Fedora Account System Username: yselkowitz
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8612366 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2344119-rust-gst-plugin-ndi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08612366-rust-gst-plugin-ndi/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.
A few minor things: 1. I see you've submitted the bindings for gst-check too, do you think it would make sense to wait until they are in Fedora so tests can be enabled here? 2. There's a newer version out (0.13.4 vs. 0.13.5), it would be great to get the latest version in. 3. The packaging matches other GStreamer plugins almost 100%, so I'm wondering if you intentionally dropped the "Provides" for the actual upstream project name (gst-plugin-ndi) or if they're just accidentally missing? Other than that, the package looks good to me.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) 1. I see you've submitted the bindings for gst-check too, do you think it > would make sense to wait until they are in Fedora so tests can be enabled > here? Sure, if it will get reviewed quickly enough. > 2. There's a newer version out (0.13.4 vs. 0.13.5), it would be great to get > the latest version in. OK to do pre-merge? (FRS CI won't succeed yet because it runs in COPR, which lags rawhide and won't have the side tags I'm using for the stable branches.) > 3. The packaging matches other GStreamer plugins almost 100%, so I'm > wondering if you intentionally dropped the "Provides" for the actual > upstream project name (gst-plugin-ndi) or if they're just accidentally > missing? AFAICS rust2rpm does not create these, and the only modifications I made to the rust2rpm generated .spec file was to fill in the output of %cargo_license_summary. Can that Provides be automated? (All of the above apply to the similar questions on the other plugins.)
> Sure, if it will get reviewed quickly enough. I'll do my best. ;) > OK to do pre-merge? (FRS CI won't succeed yet because it runs in COPR, which lags rawhide and won't have the side tags I'm using for the stable branches.) I don't think there's a difference in dependencies between 0.13.4 and 0.13.5, so if one fails in fedora-review-service build, the other one will to. > AFAICS rust2rpm does not create these, and the only modifications I made to the rust2rpm generated .spec file was to fill in the output of %cargo_license_summary. Can that Provides be automated? No, it cannot be automated. I added them to existing packages I maintain as a convenience for users who expect the package name to match the upstream project's name (which is not usually the case for GStreamer plugins). It would be nice if the plugins from gst-plugins-rs were consistent in this regard, but it's not a hard requirement.
Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/rust-gst-plugin-ndi.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/rust-gst-plugin-ndi-0.13.5-1.fc43.src.rpm Updated to latest version and enabled tests. Without an automated way to generate the provides, adding them seems error-prone.
Created attachment 2091329 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8612366 to 9076158
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9076158 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2344119-rust-gst-plugin-ndi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09076158-rust-gst-plugin-ndi/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.
> Without an automated way to > generate the provides, adding them seems error-prone. Why? They're present in all existing gst-plugins-rs packages, aren't they?