The package which provides the RPM macros for Rust packaging was renamed from rust-packaging to cargo-rpm-macros as part of a big rewrite. The Guidelines need to be updated, since they currently state that packages need to have BuildRequires: rust-packaging, which is no longer true.
They either need BuildRequires: rust-packaging >= 21 (if the project in question does not use functionality that was only implemented with the cargo-rpm-macros rewrite) orBuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24 (if the project's metadata uses specific syntax which is not supported by the old rust-packaging).
PS: The rust2rpm tool now generates these BuildRequires as required (i.e. it only includes BuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24 if the crate uses the new features, but includes BuildRequires: rust-packaging >= 21 if the crate is still compatible with the old packaging tools (which are still present on EPEL9, for example). This ensures backwards compatibility (where possible).
The package which provides the RPM macros for Rust packaging was renamed from
rust-packagingtocargo-rpm-macrosas part of a big rewrite. The Guidelines need to be updated, since they currently state that packages need to haveBuildRequires: rust-packaging, which is no longer true.They either need
BuildRequires: rust-packaging >= 21(if the project in question does not use functionality that was only implemented with thecargo-rpm-macrosrewrite) orBuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24(if the project's metadata uses specific syntax which is not supported by the oldrust-packaging).PS: The
rust2rpmtool now generates theseBuildRequiresas required (i.e. it only includesBuildRequires: cargo-rpm-macros >= 24if the crate uses the new features, but includesBuildRequires: rust-packaging >= 21if the crate is still compatible with the old packaging tools (which are still present on EPEL9, for example). This ensures backwards compatibility (where possible).