Bug 1279660
Summary: | Review Request: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0 - Go library to use the XDG spec | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adam Goode <adam> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | gil cattaneo <puntogil> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | adam, bpeck, brad.heaton, package-review, puntogil |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | puntogil:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-12-08 03:24:04 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Adam Goode
2015-11-10 00:43:35 UTC
This is the only outstanding dependency for the Google Cloud Print CUPS Connector: https://github.com/google/cups-connector which I am also working on. https://github.com/google/cups-connector/issues/127 Dist tag typo? * Sat Nov 7 2015 Adam Goode <X@Y> 0-0.1.20151107bzr%{?dist} Please, can you take this for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240126 ? please, fix the changelog entry should be: * Sat Nov 7 2015 Adam Goode <X@Y> 0-0.1.20151107bzr why is named golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0 ? maybe golang-launchpad-go-xdg is better ... ? Requires: golang(launchpad.net/gocheck) is for the unit-test or devel sub package? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1279660-golang- launchpad-go-xdg-v0/licensecheck.txt Please, report to upstream and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Unknown or generated -------------------- golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107/base_directory.go golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107/base_directory_test.go golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107/doc.go [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net/go-xdg [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net/go-xdg, /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. See above [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). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. See above [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [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: [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel , golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test [x]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.noarch.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.i686.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.src.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: E: devel-dependency golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gocheck -> go check, go-check, check golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: W: tag-in-description C Requires: Please, see above golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.src: W: invalid-url Source0: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: E: devel-dependency golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: W: tag-in-description C Requires: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test(x86-32) golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel: golang(launchpad.net/go-xdg/v0) golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1279660 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 Issues; [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net/go-xdg [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net/go-xdg, . [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. See above [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: W: tag-in-description C Requires: Please, see above NON blocking issues: [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1279660-golang- launchpad-go-xdg-v0/licensecheck.txt Please, report to upstream and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Unknown or generated -------------------- golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107/base_directory.go golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107/base_directory_test.go golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107/doc.go For me it is the first time I review a package golang. My apologize if I made some mistakes. what happen? Just setting a reminder to myself. agoode's scratch build of golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12092231 - I fixed the changelog. - The name is such because this is explicitly the "v0" branch (launchpad does it this way). - Thanks for catching the bug with Requires for golang(launchpad.net/gocheck). It should be for the unit-test package. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net/go-xdg fixed [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net/go-xdg, /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src fixed. /usr/share/gocode/src is owned by golang [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. fixed [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. I think this is good. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Fixed [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. this is needed for golang [?]: Latest version is packaged. yes Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.noarch.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.i686.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.src.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: E: devel-dependency golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel this is ok for now, but *-unit-test packages will probably become *-unit-test-devel packages someday. golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gocheck -> go check, go-check, check ok golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: W: tag-in-description C Requires: fixed golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.src: W: invalid-url Source0: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107.tar.gz this is ok since from bzr. New spec file and SRPM are up in the same place. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12092231 The devel packages don't require anything that owns /usr/share/gocode/src but I think this is ok for now since no other package does this yet either. Probably there needs to be a golang-filesystem package eventually. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1279660-golang- launchpad-go-xdg-v0/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share/gocode [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net(golang-gopkg-check-devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel , golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.noarch.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.i686.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-0-0.1.20151107bzr.fc24.src.rpm golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: E: devel-dependency golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.src: W: invalid-url Source0: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-20151107.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test.i686: E: devel-dependency golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gil/1279660-golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0/srpm/golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.spec 2015-12-07 07:41:03.940265206 +0100 +++ /home/gil/1279660-golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0/srpm-unpacked/golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.spec 2015-12-06 21:56:32.000000000 +0100 @@ -145,4 +145,4 @@ %changelog -* Sun Dec 6 2015 Adam Goode <adam> - 0-0.1.20151107bzr +* Sat Nov 7 2015 Adam Goode <adam> - 0-0.1.20151107bzr - Initial Fedora release. Requires -------- golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang(launchpad.net/gocheck) golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test: golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-unit-test(x86-32) golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel: golang(launchpad.net/go-xdg/v0) golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1279660 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 NON blocking issues: [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/launchpad.net(golang-gopkg-check-devel) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gil/1279660-golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0/srpm/golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.spec 2015-12-07 07:41:03.940265206 +0100 +++ /home/gil/1279660-golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0/srpm-unpacked/golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0.spec 2015-12-06 21:56:32.000000000 +0100 @@ -145,4 +145,4 @@ %changelog -* Sun Dec 6 2015 Adam Goode <adam> - 0-0.1.20151107bzr +* Sat Nov 7 2015 Adam Goode <adam> - 0-0.1.20151107bzr - Initial Fedora release. Please, fix before import Approved Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/golang-launchpad-go-xdg-v0 |