Bug 2378912

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9255433
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09255433-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file help.go is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Spec looks good, but can you apply 1.17.1 go2rpm template?

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.fc43.src.rpm

- update to 2.78.3
- use go2rpm 1.17.1 spec template

Created attachment 2103371 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9255433 to 9405649

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9405649
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09405649-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file help.go is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Thanks for updating the spec!

> E: summary-too-long JFrog CLI is a client that provides a simple interface that automates access to the JFrog products

Something like this might be OK: CLI to automate access to JFrog products

> %{_bindir}/jfrog-cli

Upstream uses `jf` for the binary, why not in this case? I can't find any other app using `jf` with `dnf provides /usr/bin/jf`.

Also, it seems this CLI supports shell completions, can you add them? https://docs.jfrog-applications.jfrog.io/jfrog-applications/jfrog-cli/shell-auto-completion

(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #6)
> Thanks for updating the spec!
> 
> > E: summary-too-long JFrog CLI is a client that provides a simple interface that automates access to the JFrog products
> 
> Something like this might be OK: CLI to automate access to JFrog products

Fixed.

> > %{_bindir}/jfrog-cli
> 
> Upstream uses `jf` for the binary, why not in this case? I can't find any
> other app using `jf` with `dnf provides /usr/bin/jf`.

Corrected. It used to be called jfrog-cli and I kept the name for no good reason.

> Also, it seems this CLI supports shell completions, can you add them?
> https://docs.jfrog-applications.jfrog.io/jfrog-applications/jfrog-cli/shell-
> auto-completion

How? I get an error if I add this to the %build section:
for cmd in completion/shells; do
  %gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd
done

...
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli/completion/shells: build constraints exclude all Go files in /builddir/build/BUILD/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-build/jfrog-cli-2.78.3/completion/shells

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-2.fc44.src.rpm

Created attachment 2103811 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9405649 to 9435068

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9435068
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09435068-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file help.go is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

> Corrected. It used to be called jfrog-cli and I kept the name for no good reason.

You can create a soft-link if you want to have both names. `node-exporter` does that for example to keep old name.

> How? I get an error if I add this to the %build section:
> for cmd in completion/shells; do
>   %gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd
> done
> 
> ...
> github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli/completion/shells: build constraints exclude all Go files in /builddir/build/BUILD/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-build/jfrog-cli-2.78.3/completion/shells

Can you try the way `doctl` spec does?

in %build:

%{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion bash > jf.bash
%{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion fish > jf.fish
%{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion zsh  > jf.zsh

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/doctl/blob/rawhide/f/doctl.spec#_51

(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #11)
> > Corrected. It used to be called jfrog-cli and I kept the name for no good reason.
> 
> You can create a soft-link if you want to have both names. `node-exporter`
> does that for example to keep old name.

No need. Since this is a new package to Fedora, I'll just follow current upstream naming.

> > How? I get an error if I add this to the %build section:
> > for cmd in completion/shells; do
> >   %gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd
> > done
> > 
> > ...
> > github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli/completion/shells: build constraints exclude all Go files in /builddir/build/BUILD/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-build/jfrog-cli-2.78.3/completion/shells
> 
> Can you try the way `doctl` spec does?
> 
> in %build:
> 
> %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion bash > jf.bash
> %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion fish > jf.fish
> %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion zsh  > jf.zsh
> 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/doctl/blob/rawhide/f/doctl.spec#_51

Thanks for the pointer. Done!

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-3.fc44.src.rpm

Created attachment 2104092 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9435068 to 9444136

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9444136
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09444136-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file help.go is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Golang Package Review
==============

This package was generated using go2rpm, which simplifies the review.

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


- [x] The latest version is packaged or packaging an earlier version is justified.
- [x] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct identifiers.
- [x] The package builds successfully in mock.
- [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review).
- [x] There are no relevant rpmlint errors.
- [x] The package runs tests in %check.
- [x] `%goipath` is set correctly.
- [x] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution.
- [x] There are no `%{_bindir}/*` wildcards in %files.
- [x] The package does not use `%gometa -f` if it has dependents that still build for %ix86.
- [x] The package complies with the Golang and general Packaging Guidelines.

Package approved! On import, don't forget to do the following:

- [ ] Add the package to release-monitoring.org
- [ ] Give go-sig privileges (at least commit) on the package
- [ ] Close the review bug by referencing its ID in the rpm changelog and the Bodhi ticket.

Thanks!

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jfrog-cli

FEDORA-2025-233d557ff7 (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-233d557ff7

FEDORA-2025-233d557ff7 (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.