Bug 1979790
| Summary: | Review Request: golang-github-schollz-cli-2 - A simple, fast, and fun package for building command line apps in Go | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Davide Cavalca <davide> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | hiwkby, michel, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | hiwkby:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-11-14 16:43:23 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1980196 | ||
|
Description
Davide Cavalca
2021-07-07 05:04:00 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71431261 Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Renamed to use the correct import path. Hello, Koji build is failing. Please check: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76605865 Hirotaka Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - convert to rpmautospec - fix broken tests Hello, Thank you for your comment. Here is a successful koji scratch build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77708226 Hello Davide, please check my review. One rpmlint error is detected. You should create a separate *-doc source package because most of duplicated files of this package are docs. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - One rpmlint error(`files-duplicated-waste`) is detected. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_rpmlint - Documentation size is bigger than 1MB. You should separate docs from main package if docs causes the main package to pull than it would without the documentation. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging--guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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. [-]: %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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- $ rpmlint results/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm ========================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================= rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec:52: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog ========================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ========================================================================== $ rpmlint results/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel-2.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm ========================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================= rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/.goipath golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 110811 golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/README.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/docs/CHANGELOG.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/docs/CHANGELOG.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/docs/migrate-v1-to-v2.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/docs/migrate-v1-to-v2.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/docs/v1/manual.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/docs/v1/manual.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/docs/v2/manual.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/docs/v2/manual.md ========================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s ========================================================================== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/schollz/cli/archive/v2.2.1/cli-2.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c67fe8a60f9f53c99311aeac72c3b0b0c0fb0e1377286bed1e3c463b26c7bf3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c67fe8a60f9f53c99311aeac72c3b0b0c0fb0e1377286bed1e3c463b26c7bf3c Requires -------- golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml) golang(github.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/v2/md2man) golang(gopkg.in/yaml.v2) Provides -------- golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel: golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2) golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2/altsrc) golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/cli/v2) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1979790 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Java, PHP, R, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - Move documentation to doc subpackage Hello Davide, Thank you for your reply. I confirmed the rpmlint error is fixed. I found another thing. Patch files must be checked into the Fedora package repository. Please change the spec file like this: ``` # Make test case compatible with Go 1.17 # https://github.com/urfave/cli/pull/1299 Patch0: app_test.go.patch ``` Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches Thanks in advance, Hirotaka I believe this is already the case. The specfile is currently doing: # Make test case compatible with Go 1.17 Patch0: https://github.com/urfave/cli/pull/1299.patch This will result in spectool downloading the patch, and it will be included in dist-git alongside the specfile when the package is imported. This is a pretty common pattern, and I personally prefer it because it makes it obvious that we're using an unmodified patch from upstream. Hello Davide, thank you for your comment! It is reasonable for me to submit patches to the Fedora repository. I wonder how everybody can track changes of them. Could you ask schollz to merge the patch? I think you need not to add the patch to the Fedora repository if the patch is accepted by the upstream. If you think you need no changes anymore, I can ask the Fedora Packaging Committee how to apply the patch guidelines in this case. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Hi Hirotaka, (In reply to Hirotaka Wakabayashi from comment #10) > Hello Davide, thank you for your comment! > > It is reasonable for me to submit patches to the Fedora repository. I wonder > how everybody can track changes of them. > I think there's some confusion here. As Davide said, this patch *will* be checked in once the review is approved and there is a dist-git repo for the package. Otherwise, we don't really have a place to check it in anyway. > Could you ask schollz to merge the patch? I think you need not to add the > patch to the Fedora repository if the patch is accepted by the upstream. > It's unrealistic to expect a package to have no patches at review time, I think. Even once it's approved, patches will be needed occasionally. The requirement that patches have links is exactly so we can keep the number we carry to a minimum, as we can check if they have been merged (or, by using 'spectool -gf', to notice if they have been updated, if it's a patch by a third party) > If you think you need no changes anymore, I can ask the Fedora Packaging > Committee how to apply the patch guidelines in this case. > I don't think FPC needs to weigh in here, it will just block the review unnecessarily. But thanks for being really thorough! Hello Michel, Thanks a lot for your support! It is no problem if the patch will be imported to the Fedora repo. I have asked Davide to change the spec file because it was difficult for me to understand the how the patch will be checked in. Patch Guidelines say it is best practice to file it in an upstream bug tracker. But In this case, the patch is not filed yet there. So I have asked Davide to file it to the upstream bug tracker. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment Davide, I'll check for other issues today. I'm not going to block the review, so please forgive me. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Thanks for clarifying. Upstream in this case is actually a fork of urfave/cli, which is where the patch I'd included here originated from. Upstream doesn't have issues enabled, but they do take PRs, so I've cherrypicked the commits and resubmitted them as https://github.com/schollz/cli/pull/1. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - Replace patch with upstream PR Hi Davide, Thank you for your quick reply! Package is almost approved. Please add a copy of the LICENSE file to -doc subpackage if -doc subpackage is independent of -devel package. ``` %files doc %doc docs %license LICENSE <--- this line is needed. ``` If -doc package is dependent upon -devel package, please add "Requires:" tag to -doc subpackage. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing Regards, Hirotaka Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The subpackage is independent of the base package but it doesn't have copies of any license texts. ===== 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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- ``` $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm ===================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================== rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog ====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====================== $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel-2.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm ===================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================== rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/.goipath golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/README.md ====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================== $ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc-2.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm ===================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================== rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 ====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ====================== ``` Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/schollz/cli/archive/v2.2.1/cli-2.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c67fe8a60f9f53c99311aeac72c3b0b0c0fb0e1377286bed1e3c463b26c7bf3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c67fe8a60f9f53c99311aeac72c3b0b0c0fb0e1377286bed1e3c463b26c7bf3c Requires -------- golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml) golang(github.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/v2/md2man) golang(gopkg.in/yaml.v2) Provides -------- golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc: golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel: golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2) golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2/altsrc) golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/cli/v2) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1979790 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, C/C++, Haskell, Java, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-schollz-cli-2/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - Add license to doc subpackage Hi Davide, Thank you for your quick reply! Package approved!!
Regards,
Hirotaka
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
```
$ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-cli-2-2.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1
golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec: W: no-%build-section
golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ======================
$ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel-2.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/.goipath
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/schollz/cli/v2/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel/README.md
====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ======================
$ rpmlint golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc-2.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1
====================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================
```
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/schollz/cli/archive/v2.2.1/cli-2.2.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c67fe8a60f9f53c99311aeac72c3b0b0c0fb0e1377286bed1e3c463b26c7bf3c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c67fe8a60f9f53c99311aeac72c3b0b0c0fb0e1377286bed1e3c463b26c7bf3c
Requires
--------
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
go-filesystem
golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml)
golang(github.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/v2/md2man)
golang(gopkg.in/yaml.v2)
Provides
--------
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc:
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-doc
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel:
golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2)
golang(github.com/schollz/cli/v2/altsrc)
golang-github-schollz-cli-2-devel
golang-ipath(github.com/schollz/cli/v2)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/build/dev/fedora_packaging/1979790-golang-github-schollz-cli-2/srpm/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec 2021-11-13 07:57:48.867229080 +0000
+++ /home/build/dev/fedora_packaging/1979790-golang-github-schollz-cli-2/srpm-unpacked/golang-github-schollz-cli-2.spec 2021-11-13 05:21:29.000000000 +0000
@@ -55,5 +55,4 @@
%files doc
-%license LICENSE
%doc docs
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1979790
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo golang-github-schollz-cli-2 1979790 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/37497 (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-schollz-cli-2 FEDORA-2021-9f1d043ef7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f1d043ef7 FEDORA-2021-9f1d043ef7 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |