Bug 1212056

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- License should be tagged %license not %doc
- Package should be no arch no matter the distribution

Since both can be fixed on upload and are not blocking, this package is approved.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-devel-0-0.1.git367a65d.el7.centos.noarch.rpm
          golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.el7.centos.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    golang



Provides
--------
golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-devel:
    golang(github.com/hashicorp/logutils)
    golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-devel



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hashicorp/logutils/archive/367a65d59043b4f846d179341d138f01f988c186/logutils-367a65d.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9b2173d9277574adbc45400101cb0b65534a5cd3defe62eeb3bff652eeb3e34c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b2173d9277574adbc45400101cb0b65534a5cd3defe62eeb3bff652eeb3e34c


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (18d98aa) last change: 2014-10-14
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1212056
Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-logutils
Short Description: Utilities for slightly better logging in Go
Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/logutils
Owners: jchaloup lsm5
Branches: f22 f21 f20 el6
InitialCC: golang-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.fc22

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.fc21

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.el6

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

golang-github-hashicorp-logutils-0-0.1.git367a65d.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

*** Bug 1060580 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***