Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/logic/public_git/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs.git/plain/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/logic/vault/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00522690-golang-github-Jeffail-gabs/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-0.1.git2a3aa15.fc27.src.rpm Description: Parse, create, and edit unknown or dynamic JSON in golang Fedora Account System Username: logic
I've had a look at this as a new packager. Followed the review process as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Please don't consider my review as approval. Package was generated through gofed which makes the review process easier. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (gofed generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed - fedora-review report doesn't show any failures, items marked as "need manual review" pass
Hello, Upstream does provide version tags now. Would you like to update the spec to use a proper version for this package? Note that if you are packaging a pre/post release, with a commit hash in it, guidelines say you must use the date the snapshot was taken in the Release: tag.
I need this for the blocking bug. - Please use the correct Release tag for a release version (i.e. not a snapshot): Release: 1%{?dist} - The %changelog doesn't reflect the correct version, fix it: * Sat Mar 04 2017 Ed Marshall <esm> - 1.0-1 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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs/review-golang- github-Jeffail-gabs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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 20480 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- github-Jeffail-gabs-devel , golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel-1.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel-1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/logic/public_git/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs.git/plain/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2572/22242572/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Parse, create, and edit unknown or dynamic JSON in golang Fedora Account System Username: logic Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22242570 (With an "expected" failure on ppc64, something is up with go scratch builds and the golang rpm macro exceptions for ppc64.)
Package looks good. Approved! You can ignore my fedora-review rpmlint error. For some reason it could not open the github URL. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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 must own all directories that it creates. [-]: %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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel-1.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel-1.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.fc28.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Jeffail/gabs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Jeffail/gabs <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel: golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-unit-test-devel(x86-64) golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel: golang(github.com/Jeffail/gabs) golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-devel Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Jeffail/gabs/archive/1.0/gabs-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a00eaf3d9bb405ac123d0bb9e76f568a6ceac2c07b171c46dd58c2ea2d695025 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a00eaf3d9bb405ac123d0bb9e76f568a6ceac2c07b171c46dd58c2ea2d695025
And thank you for your review, Robert :)
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-Jeffail-gabs
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-603a4a9c22
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-603a4a9c22
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.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-d5b0e34484
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-7e2f69a9f3
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Still waiting for EPEL7 to be pushed.
golang-github-Jeffail-gabs-1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.