https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033058 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #3) > * 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 Something that is also important to check is whether Rust packages (and all generated subpackages) *install* correctly, not only that the package builds. > 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. That is not necessary. The license specified in the Cargo.toml file is supposed to describe the license of the entire crate / project. Literally no Rust project I have seen includes license headers in every source file (and I have probably looked at 1000+ Rust projects by now). > 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. The Summaries are generated by rust2rpm, fso it would need to be fixed by generating a patch with "rust2rpm -p", so that the change applies consistently everywhere. Additionally, the -devel and +feature-devel subpackages are also only ever supposed to be consumed by RPM builds as BuildRequires, so making Summary or %description interesting for humans is very low priority (except for the main package's Summary). > 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.") Please, don't manually change Summary or %desciption tags. Those are automatically generated, and only meant to be minimally useful while not being an empty string. > 4.) No need to repeat BuildArch everywhere. > > All subpackages are noarch. Just include BuildArch before the %package > declarations. That's not how Rust packaging works. > 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? This is intentional. The file is only included as %ghost. Additionally, the subpackages encode RPM dependency information, they don't contain files. > 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 This is expected for Rust packages, though it could be improved. Please report this issue with https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm instead of manual changes that only creating work when rebasing a package for new versions. -- 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
