Bug 2241608 (golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock)

I will take this review.

Noting here that this is an unretirement request, since I don't see that mentioned above.

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below.  Doe we need README.md
  in both places?

- The file sample/README.markdown is installed in /usr/share/doc, but it is
  confusing.  It starts "This directory contains sample code...", which is
  certainly not true of the directory containing README.markdown.  The sample
  code is installed, but it is in
  /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/sample.

===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License
     2.0 [generated file]". 16 files have unknown license.
[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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 4320 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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
-------
Checking: golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel-0-0.1.20231001gite94d794.fc40.noarch.rpm
          golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-0-0.1.20231001gite94d794.fc40.src.rpm
================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwk5n2u4y')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock.spec: W: no-%build-section
golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/.goipath
golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel/README.md
================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.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-jacobsa-oglemock-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/.goipath
golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel/README.md
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/archive/e94d794d06ffc6de42cb19d0dab3c219efdd6dcf/oglemock-e94d794d06ffc6de42cb19d0dab3c219efdd6dcf.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b14e3061b02e5e021f1ddfe648f244e64bcdcae4dbda2f874c97b34f5e91c787
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b14e3061b02e5e021f1ddfe648f244e64bcdcae4dbda2f874c97b34f5e91c787


Requires
--------
golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglematchers)



Provides
--------
golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel:
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock)
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock)(commit=e94d794d06ffc6de42cb19d0dab3c219efdd6dcf)
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/generate)
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/generate)(commit=e94d794d06ffc6de42cb19d0dab3c219efdd6dcf)
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/sample/mock_io)
    golang(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/sample/mock_io)(commit=e94d794d06ffc6de42cb19d0dab3c219efdd6dcf)
    golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-devel
    golang-ipath(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock)
    golang-ipath(github.com/jacobsa/oglemock)(commit=e94d794d06ffc6de42cb19d0dab3c219efdd6dcf)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241608 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, fonts, Python, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, R, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thanks for the review!

- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below.  Doe we need README.md
  in both places?

No but I can't do anything about it, the go install process pics up .md files automatically.


- The file sample/README.markdown is installed in /usr/share/doc, but it is
  confusing.  It starts "This directory contains sample code...", which is
  certainly not true of the directory containing README.markdown.  The sample
  code is installed, but it is in
  /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/sample.


Removed

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock-0-0.1.20231001gite94d794.fc39.src.rpm

Okay, that makes sense.  This package is APPROVED.

Package was never unretired.
The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval.
Let us know if you're still interested in this package.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days