Bug 2428633

Summary: Review Request: hcloud - Command-line interface for Hetzner Cloud
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: msuchy, package-review
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-01-12 22:32:36 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: 2428634    

Description Mikel Olasagasti Uranga 2026-01-12 09:19:28 UTC
Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/hcloud.spec
SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/hcloud-1.59.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Description: A command-line interface for Hetzner Cloud.
Fedora Account System Username: mikelo2

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-01-12 09:23:54 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10000304
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2428633-hcloud/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10000304-hcloud/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hcloud
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

Comment 2 Miroslav Suchý 2026-01-12 14:56:26 UTC
I am not doing a full formal review, but I noticed a few things:

> %autopatch -p1

You do not have any patches. So you do not need it.

> ExcludeArch:    %{ix86} ppc64le s390x

Any reason for this? If there is valid reason you should have comment above linking to BZ. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures
Maybe you wanted to use ExclusiveArch - see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_go_language_architectures

Comment 3 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga 2026-01-12 15:14:53 UTC
>> %autopatch -p1
> You do not have any patches. So you do not need it.

go2rpm template adds that by default. The idea, iirc, was to have it by default but I can remove it.

>> ExcludeArch:    %{ix86} ppc64le s390x

> Any reason for this? If there is valid reason you should have comment above linking to BZ. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures
Maybe you wanted to use ExclusiveArch - see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_go_language_architectures

Original package had it so I kept it. "%{ix86}" could be removed as with "%gometa -f" it already ignores that arch.