https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mads Kiilerich from comment #4) > (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > > This is correct, however you could likely drop the now-empty "web" feature > > as well. > > You mean by manually making additional changes to the files generated by > rust2rpm? Is there a good workflow to maintain such packages when we not > just can run rust2rpm again in the future? You can use "rust2rpm -p" to automate part of that workflow, or use a rust2rpm.conf configuration file to affect certain aspects of spec file generation that *don't* need manual interventions. In this case, you could set "unwanted-features = web", which would have the same effect. However, I don't recommend using this setting in general, since it can have unintended consequences if not used right (but it would work in this case, since the "web" feature has no dependencies and is not depended on by any other features). It looks like you've opted for option 3 (i.e. remove the "+web-devel" subpackage from the spec file, but not patch Cargo.toml. This is more or less equivalent to using the "unwanted-features" setting and *might or might not do what you expect depending on the circumstances*. I recommend patching out the "web" feature from Cargo.toml with "rust2rpm -p". > (Also, it seems like it could be a rust2rpm feature request to remove such > empty features completely.) No can do. Features with no dependencies are valid. So removing any features that *end up empty after stripping unwanted dependencies* need to be handled on a case by case basis, and can't just be removed automatically, since that would be wrong in ~50% of cases. > Ok, I guess the license files is a blocker. Trying to resolve that upstream. Yes, for now. Thank you for approaching upstream. > Meanwhile, an update with web feature removed: > > Spec URL: https://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/rust-whoami.spec > SRPM URL: > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/535/102560535/rust-whoami-1.4. > 0-2.fc39.src.rpm Thanks, the package looks good otherwise, I'll do the full review once the issue of the missing license texts is resolved. -- 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=2217167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c5 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
