https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2344534 --- Comment #3 from wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > Looks mostly OK, with some caveats: > > > %global commit a0cdef90cf86cd8d2cc89723f5751c1123ae7e2b > > %global short_commit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) > > It would be great if you could make this unambiguous that this refers to the > bundled aw-server-rust snapshot, and not awatcher itself. Done. > > # Mozilla Public License 2.0 > > This is not an SPDX license identifier, it looks like it's from > awatcher-0.3.1/Cargo.toml: > > > license = "Mozilla Public License 2.0" > > This is a bug. I created a PR. > > # prefix with aw- in order to be detected as a watcher in aw-qt > > mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/{%{name},%{watcher_name}} > > If you rename the binaries anyway, you could just remove the call to > `%cargo_install` and install them the way you need from target/rpm/* > directly. Done. > > aw-server = { git = "https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-server-rust";, optional = true, rev = "656f3c9" } > > aw-datastore = { git = "https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-server-rust";, optional = true, rev = "656f3c9" } > > You're patching watchers/Cargo.toml to replace the git dependency there, but > these two git dependencies in the root Cargo.toml remain. How does this even > work? Is it because the "bundle" feature is not enabled by default? Yes. This package can be compiled as bundled with aw-server-rust (for convenience) or as a watcher to aw-server-rust. I just use the second option, so I believe only some interface parts are needed. > In general, it's really unfortunate that this project needs to basically > import aw-server-rust code via git. Usually this is not a desirable state > for packaging in Fedora. At the very least, you'd need to declare virtual > Provides for the bundled aw-server-rust code snapshot. But otherwise it > seems to be done correctly. Done with the virtual Provides. > Ideally the common interfaces would be published as a library on crates.io. > Is that something that has been considered upstream? I don't think the git > snapshot dependency would be a sustainable solution for them long-term, > either. Not that I know of. The activitywatch app is distributed as a bundle (aw-server included) from https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/activitywatch-bin There was an idea at https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch/issues/92#issuecomment-1583938452 to merge the watcher into that bundle, but it didn't happen. The development in general slowed down though. I added a comment about that to the SPEC file. Is the SPEC file OK now? [fedora-review-service-build] -- 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=2344534 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202344534%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
