Overview
Request History
firstyear created request
This package is unmaintained in favour of cargo-packaging.
staging-bot added openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:25 as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:25"
staging-bot accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:25"
licensedigger accepted review
factory-auto added as a reviewer
submitter not devel maintainer
factory-auto accepted review
ok
dimstar_suse accepted review
2 months in the queue, all consumers are fixed. so let's accept this
anag+factory accepted review
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:25 got accepted.
anag+factory approved review
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:25 got accepted.
anag+factory accepted request
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:25 got accepted.
Yep, I'm aware - I've reported bugs against each of these. If they don't respond within a few weeks I think we need to take a different approach.
I don't like how it's incompatible with Fedora — rust-packaging has %{build_rustflags} (same as Fedora's rust-srpm-macros) while cargo-packaging has %{__rustflags}. Makes it harder to write cross-system specs.
Also, rust-packaging had
-Ccodegen-units=1
which is missing in cargo-packaging. Oversight?Not an oversight, intentional. The manipulation of codegen units is a source of issues in builds for memory exhaustion and has no meaningful impact on performance.
The macros name could be changed, or we could support both possibilities. Can you open an issue so I don't forget to add this?
Regardless, we are taking a different approach to rust in suse to fedora/redhat and as a result, there will probably be conflicts in that - it's a sad but inevitable part of the process.
we are only waiting on jless now.