Spec URL: https://mrunge.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.spec SRPM URL: https://mrunge.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.1.git9cbef7c.fc24.src.rpm Description: Colorable writer for windows. Fedora Account System Username: mrunge $ rpmlint golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.1.git9cbef7c.fc24.src.rpm golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-devel-0-0.1.git9cbef7c.fc24.noarch.rpm golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Colorable writer for windows. golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-devel.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Colorable writer for windows. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. this package depends on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376407
I would guess that as with go-isatty, you'd be okay with closing this in favour of another review? There is another one at bug 1430144.
Sure. The other way around, one could ask, why the committer of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430144 did not act as reviewer here.
Hello, I'll review yours since you are older and responsive. - Please bump to the latest revision: %global commit ad5389df28cdac544c99bd7b9161a0b5b6ca9d1b - Please provide a commitdate for versionning: %global commitdate 20170816 And: Release: 0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} Then: * Mon Sep 18 2017 Matthias Runge <mrunge> - 0-0.1.20170816gitad5389d
*** Bug 1430144 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The review itself: - golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Colorable writer for windows. Trivial: remove the dot at the end of the summary. - The _example directory should go in %doc: First remove _example from the devel files list by modifying this line: for file in $(find . -iname "*.go" \! -iname "*_test.go" \! -path "./_example/*") ; do Then add it to doc: %doc README.md _example - You must own /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/cmd %dir %{gopath}/src/%{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}/go-colorable/cmd 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable/review- golang-github-mattn-go-colorable/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn/go- colorable/_example, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn/go- colorable/cmd [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/_example, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/cmd, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn(golang-github-mattn-go- runewidth-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. [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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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 ------- Checking: golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-devel-0-0.1.20170816gitad5389d.fc28.noarch.rpm golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.1.20170816gitad5389d.fc28.src.rpm golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-devel.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Colorable writer for windows. golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Colorable writer for windows. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Thank you for your review Updated SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.1.20170816gitad5389d.fc26.src.rpm
_example is used during tests; not sure if I still should add it to docs. Tests expect it to live under /usr/share/gocode/src/gopkg.in/mattn/go-colorable.v1/_example/ I'll need to add /usr/share/gocode/src/gopkg.in/mattn/go-colorable.v1/cmd/colorable (as written in comment 4). Update will follow shortly.
I didn't have any issue with the tests despite putting _example in %doc.
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.2.20170816gitad5389d.fc26.src.rpm
You didn't remove _example from the devel files list, thus the files will be listed twice.
right. removing them, results in test failures. examples are being used during tests.
> removing them, results in test failures I can't reproduce such failures, nor can I find any indication that the examples are used for the tests. You can see in this Koji build I've just done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21946877 No failure in the logs: + GOPATH=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.2.20170816gitad5389d.fc28.x86_64//usr/share/gocode:/usr/share/gocode + go test -compiler gc -ldflags '' gopkg.in/mattn/go-colorable.v1 ok gopkg.in/mattn/go-colorable.v1 0.003s + exit 0
Hmm, it just fails on my f26 host. However, it works in mockbuild SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.3.20170816gitad5389d.fc26.src.rpm
That's strange. Package is good and accepted.
*thank you*
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-mattn-go-colorable
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.3.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ba91ff6381
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.3.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ba91ff6381
Apologies for missing this when I originally filed my review request; there's actually a problem with the packaging for this version relating to the import path, but I'll open a separate BZ for that now that the package is approved and pushed.
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.4.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bf5e7f8700
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.4.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bf5e7f8700
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.5.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1767a27810
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.5.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1767a27810
golang-github-mattn-go-colorable-0-0.5.20170816gitad5389d.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.