[Bug 2238751] Review Request: rutabaga-gfx-ffi - Handling virtio-gpu protocols

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238751



--- Comment #11 from Marc-Andre Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #8)
> Thanks for the update, and sorry for the wait.

No worries (the QEMU side isn't yet merged upstream, and I am not sure when we
will actually have users)

> 1. The "make-snapshot.sh" script is not included in the SRPM. It should be
> included as a SOURCE, otherwise it's impossible to re-create the srpm from
> its contents.

fixed

> 
> 2. The %cargo_license macro has an "-a" flag (for "--all-features"), which
> will make its results include things that aren't actually linked into the
> binary. Please drop the "-a" flag here.

ok

> 
> 3. The crates do not set their license in crate metadata, which trips up the
> %cargo_license* macros. It would be great if upstream set `package.license =
> "BSD-3-Clause"` for both crates ... but until that's the case, it might be a
> good idea to patch that in manually so the macros produce correct / complete
> output.

It seems they considered it:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/crosvm/crosvm/+/4082335

I don't see what difference there is between the Chromium LICENSE and BSD-3
though.

> 
> 4. The licenses of all statically linked dependencies are listed in
> LICENSE.dependencies, but the License tag itself does not reflect them.
> Looking at the contents of the LICENSE.dependencies file from the built
> package, the License tag in the spec should look something like this:
> 
> """
> # rutabaga_gfx: BSD-3-Clause
> # crate dependencies:
> # - BSD-2-Clause
> # - MIT OR Apache-2.0
> # - MIT
> # - Unlicense OR MIT
> License:        BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause AND MIT AND (MIT OR
> Apache-2.0) AND (Unlicense OR MIT)
> """

fixed, thanks

> 
> 5. The patches don't have explanations or justifications, please add a short
> comment for each one, like
> 
> """
> # drop a Windows-specific dependency
> Patch0000:  drop-winapi.patch
> # fix filename for installed library and set up symlinks correctly
> Patch0001:  fix-libs.patch
> # set library SONAME correctly
> Patch0002:  set-soname.patch
> """

done

> 
> (I'm assuming that's the reason for the patches, but I'm just guessing,
> since they're not documented yet :))
> From what it looks like, the "fix-libs.patch" could be dropped entirely,
> since "make" is no longer used to install the files?

done

> 
> 7. You could drop the BuildRequires for "make" since it is no longer used.

ok

> 
> 8. There's no URL to the upstream project in the package metadata.
> 
> I would add this instead of only having the url in a comment:
> URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/crosvm/crosvm

ok

> 
> 9. The placement of the "%generate_buildrequires" scriptlet (between RPM
> tags and %description) is very unusual. Please place it between %prep and
> %build (since that's the order in which the scriptlets are executed).

Hmm, I thought it was there initially and you asked me to move it. I realize
now you just asked for an extra empty line, ok.. (confusing)

> 
> 10. Please bump the BuildRequires from "rust-packaging >= 21" to
> "cargo-rpm-macros".
> The "rust-packaging" package no longer exists and is only provided by
> "cargo-rpm-macros" for backwards compatibility.

ok


-- 
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=2238751

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202238751%23c11
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux