Package for Fedora#163
Conversation
bbd8401 to
87c75a0
Compare
|
is it possible to put these 2 new files into a I hope this folder structure won't cause you any trouble to publish to the fedora repository. I have no idea if it's a good idea to ship a binary for a library. I would not do it personally. |
|
Okay, I've moved the fedora packaging files into Note that there is a patch to remove criterion from the Cargo.toml, because this crate is not available in fedora, and this is only used for benchmarking, anyway. Also, it would be better to release v0.12 of nom-kconfig on crates.io before submitting this to Fedora |
|
0.12.0 is available |
b634e11 to
9467150
Compare
Thanks, I've updated this PR for v0.12.0 |
|
it seems there a conflict still. You should not rely on my branch |
45ce100 to
12e62f4
Compare
|
Okay, I've rebased my changes on |
Fedora uses a
.specfile for packaging.I used
rust2rpmto generate this spec: https://codeberg.org/rust2rpm/rust2rpmwhich is configured with a toml file:
rust2rpm.toml. Currently it only configures the spec to exclude the standalone binary, in other words, this only packages the library version ofnom-kconfig.@Mcdostone let me know if you would prefer to package the binary too.
I'm marking this PR as a draft until I boot up Fedora and test it