https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2360119 --- Comment #29 from Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #28) > (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.) Ah. Which is exactly what happened. I had it before the BuildRequires, so that effectively dropped the cargo macros from the build root, leading to strange build failures. > > 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. Problem is the library links udev, so anyone using the library gets the udev dependency even if the functionality actually needing udev is not used ... Maybe I can hide the udev dependeny behind a feature flag, so we can have two variants of the library, with and without udev ... > 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. Will remove. -- 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%23c29 -- _______________________________________________ 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
