https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033058 Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lkundrak@xxxxx --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> --- * Package name is correct * Source matches upstream * License is good for Fedora * SPEC is reasonably clean, legible and uses macros consistently * Builds fine in mock * Provides/Requires look okay Here's a few things that need fixing or explanation: 0.) The latest version seems to be 0.2.1. Why are you packaging an old one? 1.) It is not clear what does the license apply to. None of the *.rs source files indicate how are they licensed. There's a MIT license file thrown in -- but it's not clear which files does it apply to. Please ask upstream to clarify to situation -- ideally by adding a license statement to each source file. A SPDX tag would do too. 2.) The summary doesn't look good. It is supposed to explain *what* is in the package and starting it with a verb is a sure wait to fail at doing that. Moreover the summary of each subpackage seems to be the same. Instead, it should help the user understand how do the subpackages differ. 3.) Expand on the description. Instead of just repeating the summary line, you should actually explain what is the package good for. E.g. ("This package contains library used for communicating via generic netlink protocol from programs written in Rust language.") 4.) No need to repeat BuildArch everywhere. All subpackages are noarch. Just include BuildArch before the %package declarations. 5.) The filelists look suspicious: === rust-genetlink-devel-0.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm === ... -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1778 Jan 1 1970 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/Cargo.toml === rust-genetlink+default-devel-0.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm === -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1778 Jan 1 1970 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/Cargo.toml === rust-genetlink+smol_socket-devel-0.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm === -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1778 Jan 1 1970 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/Cargo.toml === rust-genetlink+async-std-devel-0.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm === -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1778 Jan 1 1970 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/Cargo.toml === rust-genetlink+tokio-devel-0.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm === -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1778 Jan 1 1970 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/Cargo.toml === rust-genetlink+tokio_socket-devel-0.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm === -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1778 Jan 1 1970 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/Cargo.toml Why do the subpackages even exist, when they all package a file that rust-genetlink-devel also packages? 6.) LICENSE-MIT is packaged twice in rust-genetlink-devel -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1532 Nov 29 1973 /usr/share/cargo/registry/genetlink-0.1.0/LICENSE-MIT -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1532 Nov 29 1973 /usr/share/licenses/rust-genetlink-devel/LICENSE-MIT -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033058 _______________________________________________ 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
