[Bug 1356907] Review Request: rust - The Rust Programming Language

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356907



--- Comment #7 from Josh Stone <jistone@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #6)
> * License file FiraSans-LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license

OK, will change.

> * Package has .a files

Yes, libcompiler-rt.a, and technically all the .rlib files are static archives
too.  I could move them all to a rust-static package, and then the base rust
package will need to require that anyway.  Is that preferable?

> * %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/html/
> -> nothing actually owns %{_docdir}/%{name} for -doc subpackage

Ok, it can share ownership of that directory, right?

> * %define bootstrap_base
> https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/%{bootstrap_date}/rustc-
> %{bootstrap_channel}
> use %global

Sure, will change.

> * BuildRequires:  python
> -> is it really needed like python? not python2 or python3?

You're right, it needs python2.  I'll change it.

> * -doc subpackage must be noarch

How strong is that "must"?  The documentation can vary by architecture in small
ways.  For instance, `std::os::linux::raw::stat`[1] varies everywhere.  That
happens to be deprecated, but it's just one I know off-hand; there may be more.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/os/linux/raw/struct.stat.html

> * is it possible to move all lib*.so into for example, %{_libdir}/rust/?

Maybe so, but why?  They have unique hashes in the names, so they won't
collide.  Then we'd have to either add rpaths to rustc and rustdoc, or add this
path to ld.so.conf.d/ anyway.  So why move them?

> Bundled libs, add to License tag and include licenses to %license:
> * libbacktrace is BSD
> * hoedown is ISC

OK to both.

> * I think "or" should be replaced with "and" in License or rust is licensed
> on one or second license?

Rust's COPYRIGHT explicitly says it is "at your option", so I think "or" is
correct.  Then I guess the additions for bundled libraries will be "and", so we
need something like this?

  License: ASL 2.0 or MIT, and BSD and ISC

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]