Bug 1484795 - Review Request: golang-github-mattn-go-getopt - getopt for golang
Review Request: golang-github-mattn-go-getopt - getopt for golang
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Robert-André Mauchin
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1463492
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2017-08-24 06:40 EDT by Jan Chaloupka
Modified: 2017-08-24 10:03 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
zebob.m: fedora‑review?

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jan Chaloupka 2017-08-24 06:40:52 EDT
Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mattn-go-getopt/golang-github-mattn-go-getopt.spec

SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mattn-go-getopt/golang-github-mattn-go-getopt-0-0.1.git824dc75.fc24.src.rpm

Description: getopt for golang

Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21437059

$ rpmlint golang-github-mattn-go-getopt-0-0.1.git824dc75.fc24.src.rpm golang-github-mattn-go-getopt-devel-0-0.1.git824dc75.fc24.noarch.rpm
golang-github-mattn-go-getopt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C getopt for golang
golang-github-mattn-go-getopt-devel.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C getopt for golang
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 2017-08-24 07:54:49 EDT

 - The example should be included in %doc and excluded from devel.file-list:

for file in $(find . \( -iname "*.go" -or -iname "*.s" \) \! -iname "*_test.go" \! -path "./example/*") ; do


%doc README.md example

 - The versionning should respect the Fedora guidelines regarding development snapshots and as such include a commitdate, c.f. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots

   Yes, this is contradictory to the Go Packaging Drafts, but the question was asked and resolved recently: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4DRIFJD6EUMHBF742TOUQ2KWJWVZFAPV/


%global commitdate      20150316


Release:        0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

 And the changelog as well:

* Thu Aug 24 2017 Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup@redhat.com> - 0-0.1.20150316git824dc75

 - You include a license text in a patch, did you query upstream for them to include a LICENSE file?

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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]: 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". 4 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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
[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 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[?]: 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.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[-]: 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
[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
[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
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[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.

Checking: golang-github-mattn-go-getopt-devel-0-0.1.20150316git824dc75.fc28.noarch.rpm
golang-github-mattn-go-getopt-devel.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C getopt for golang
golang-github-mattn-go-getopt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C getopt for golang
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.