https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2360119



--- Comment #28 from Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> ---
> rpm is a bit picky where it allows %description being placed.

The order of things you have now is even weirder than what was there before :D
But whatever works for you ...

(The *only* thing you need to be careful about with %description is that there
are no Tags after it, because they would be subsumed into the description text,
so RPM isn't "picky", it just needs to known how to parse the .spec file.)

> As defined by rust.  'library' is lib.rs and everything included by it.
> 'module' is one 'pub mod $name;'.  Specifically the efifile.rs module
> uses udev, the other modules in the library do not.

It doesn't make sense to distinguish between modules. There is only one unit
for compilation and linking - and that's *the whole crate*. "Modules" only
exist on the source code level / file system, but they are *not* separate
compilation units. So if the *crate* links a library, *all* targets from that
crate link it, there is no granularity here (how would cargo even know?). If an
executable target *shouldn't* link with a library (because it doesn't need it),
it needs to be moved to a separate crate that doesn't have this dependency.

===

I am just confused by the "alternatives" stuff you added in the most recent
version of the package.
Is using alternatives really necessary? They're an old and creaky system that
doesn't even work on Atomic systems.

It also doesn't look as if it confirms to the guidelines here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/

Do these two packages really need to be parallel-installable with runtime
selection between the two?
Or would making uefi-boot-rs available as ... uefi-boot-rs be enough?


-- 
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=2360119

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202360119%23c28

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to