https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480 --- Comment #4 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #1) > > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > > Note: warning: File listed twice: > > /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > > guidelines/#_duplicate_files > > > > This is a problem with rust2rpm and not necessarily something that can be > > fixed here. > > > > I suppose the best way to handle this for now would be to remove the license > > files and README from %{crate_instdir} in %install and just mark the relative > > paths with `%doc` and `%license` to install them in the usual locations. > > This way of doing this was added on request: we need the license files to > present > in %{crate_instdir} because some packages may access them in there (e.g. to > show a > the README internally in help or something like that). So right now we say > something > like > > %files > %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE > %{crate_instdir}/ > > I thought rpm would be smart enough to understand that all files in that > directory > should be packaged, except that one should tagged as license. Maybe there's > some > way to tell rpm that. > > (But yeah, that's something to fix in rust2rpm.) $ rpm -qdp results/rust-print_bytes-devel-0.6.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/README.md $ rpm -qLp results/rust-print_bytes-devel-0.6.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/LICENSE-APACHE /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/LICENSE-MIT It still works, but I think it's still worth fixing. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103367#c5. > > [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > > justified. > > NOTE: rust2rpm -p should probably give a more descriptive comment > > than "# Initial patched metadata", but oh well. > > Ack. It should at least say if it was generated automatically or by the > maintainer. > Yeah, and it should also clarify that this is a downstream only patch that's not applicable upstream. > > Thanks! Sure, no problem! -- 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=2103480 _______________________________________________ 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
