https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978682 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Taking this review. Some minor issues: 1. It looks like there's two typos in the upstream Cargo.toml file, which prevent the LICENSE-* files from being included. The files are named LICENSE-*, but Cargo.toml has "LICENCE-*" (which is the less-common (British English?) spelling variant). Please alert upstream about this problem (or submit a PR to fix it in Cargo.toml), and link to the PR in your .spec file (preferably in a line above the "License" tag). 2. Until upstream releases a new version *with* those LICENSE files, please include them from the upstream GitHub sources. Both MIT and Apache-2.0 licenses require redistributed sources to contain the license text. You can add them as SOURCE1 and SOURCE2, and copy them to "." in %prep, like in these snippets (which also should make : ... Source1: https://github.com/jmfiaschi/json_value_merge/raw/0.1.3/LICENSE-APACHE Source2: https://github.com/jmfiaschi/json_value_merge/raw/0.1.3/LICENSE-MIT ... %files devel %license LICENSE-APACHE LICENSE-MIT ... %prep ... cp %{SOURCE1} . cp %{SOURCE2} . ... 3. Removing the "criterion" dev-dependency with a "rust2rpm -p" patch is a good idea, since that dependency is never actually used but increases build time of the crate by a lot. However, removing the "[[bench]]" entry from Cargo.toml and the "bench/*.rs" files in %prep is not usually necessary, since those are not accessed during RPM builds at all (other than cargo checking that source files listed in "[[bench]]" are actually there, which they are). 4. Assuming drg still requires json_value_merge version 0.1.x, please update the package to version 0.1.3 for this review. Otherwise, the latest version would be 1.1.0, but if drg is not using that version yet, you can package the "old" 0.1.3 release for now. Otherwise, the package looks fine, so I'll finish up the review once you've fixed these minor issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978682 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
