Closed tim77 closed 4 years ago
Yeah, sure thing, I was planning to do a release soon and can add them too.
I wonder if there maybe some checklist on that kind of stuff? Debian packaging policy does not mention that, for example
Trying to package and push rust-battery
in official Fedora repos. :) Thank you!
Alright, I added the license files in 343b8693dc27cc68e0daa7808b40aded36c77757, they are properly added now (checked with the cargo package
command):
~/projects/rust-battery/target/package/battery-0.7.4$ ls -1
build.rs
Cargo.lock
Cargo.toml
Cargo.toml.orig
examples
LICENSE-APACHE
LICENSE-MIT
README.md
src
target
Is there anything else we can do for packaging it into the Fedora repos? If everything looks good, I can publish a new version
Thanks a lot. Because there is a lot different MIT licenses license file is needed. But not no need to rush and publish when you have time for this. Thanks again. Otherwise LGTM. Just some Chore like:
[dependencies.uom]
-version = "^0.23"
+version = "^0.26"
uom
dependency was updated in #41 already, it should be good:
And I also need to publish fix for #40, as it affects downstream packages, so I'll publish new version in a few hours.
There LICENSE-APACHE and LICENSE-MIT files on github, but no license files on crates.io. Could you add them? This is mandatory for some Linux distros if we want to package rust-battery for official repos.