Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pstolowski/go-udev/fedora-27-x86_64/00741447-golang-github-pilebones-go-udev/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pstolowski/go-udev/fedora-27-x86_64/00741447-golang-github-pilebones-go-udev/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc27.src.rpm Description: Hello! I'd like to propose the inclusion of the package in subject into Fedora Extras. go-udev is a simple implementation of udev in Golang developped from scratch. It allows for listening to Linux-kernel Netlink messages (NETLINK_KOBJECT_UEVENT) and enumerating existing devices. Fedora Account System Username: pstolowski The output of rpmlint: $ rpmlint ./SPECS/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.spec ./RPMS/noarch/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc27.noarch.rpm ./SRPMS/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc27.src.rpm ./RPMS/noarch/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc27.noarch.rpm RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc27.x86_64.rpm $ golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.x86_64: E: no-binary 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I'm not sure the missing binary in golang-github-pilebones-go-udev should be treated as an error, I based this on another go lib package with same structure, it doesn't have any binaries either - only license/readme files.
we've revamped the way to do Golang packaging. See examples here: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ Read new guidelenes here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging Also you need a sponsor to enter the packaging group, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join Try introducing yourselve to the devel mailing list.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > we've revamped the way to do Golang packaging. See examples here: > https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ > > Read new guidelenes here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging > Ok, I've reworked it to use the above guidelines. The package builds locally for me on fc27, but fails to build on copr against fc27 and rawhide - it doesn't understand %gometa tag there. Nb, locally it was also unhappy about %{gofindfilter}, so I had to avoid this macro as well. Other than it builds fine here, only fails on copr... I'm a little bit lost now, can you advise how to proceed further with it?
UPDATE: since I need to support F26 with this package and the new-style macros are not available there, I'd like to request the old-style approach for the spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pstolowski/go-udev/fedora-26-x86_64/00742537-golang-github-pilebones-go-udev/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pstolowski/go-udev/fedora-26-x86_64/00742537-golang-github-pilebones-go-udev/golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc26.src.rpm
Yeah the macro only works for F28 and above. If you need support for older Fedora, it won't work.
Taking this review.
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1567819-golang-github- pilebones-go-udev/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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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: [x]: 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-pilebones-go-udev-devel , golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-unit- test-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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-pilebones-go-udev-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc29.x86_64.rpm golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc29.noarch.rpm golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-unit-test-devel-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc29.x86_64.rpm golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-0-0.1.git02dfd8e.fc29.src.rpm golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.x86_64: E: no-binary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.x86_64: E: no-binary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- golang-github-pilebones-go-udev (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-unit-test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel Provides -------- golang-github-pilebones-go-udev: golang-github-pilebones-go-udev golang-github-pilebones-go-udev(x86-64) golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel: golang(github.com/pilebones/go-udev/crawler) golang(github.com/pilebones/go-udev/netlink) golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-devel golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-unit-test-devel: golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-unit-test-devel golang-github-pilebones-go-udev-unit-test-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pilebones/go-udev/archive/02dfd8edaaf3a7a46ad1509ae44c8f08dfaf8ece/go-udev-02dfd8e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2265fae633de841b12ccbd5f12044814a1fa6eb64bd7ef95680500d31c80277e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2265fae633de841b12ccbd5f12044814a1fa6eb64bd7ef95680500d31c80277e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1567819 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Review notes: > [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 This is normal for gofed generated packages, so I'm giving a pass on this. And I expect this to be corrected with 3.0 spec format in the future. Also, at least a couple of those are owned by the golang stack itself, I believe. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1567819-golang-github- > pilebones-go-udev/licensecheck.txt This is caused by none of the golang files actually having license headers. Sadly, this appears to be the norm in Go libraries (even though it's a bad idea with how people do vendoring), so I'm going to consider the license file as sufficient. > golang-github-pilebones-go-udev.x86_64: E: no-binary This is not terribly surprising, and I'm okay with ignoring this, since it's a false positive with how Go libraries are packaged.
@Pawel, before I approve this review and sponsor you into the maintainers group, I'd like you to do five non-binding reviews of other packages in the review queue[1], to demonstrate your understanding of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. You can find review requests here: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html Note that the page is in chronological order, so you'll want to scroll to the bottom of the page and pick five from there, as those are recent review requests. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Show_Your_Expertise_by_Commenting_on_other_Review_Requests
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > @Pawel, before I approve this review and sponsor you into the maintainers > group, I'd like you to do five non-binding reviews of other packages in the > review queue[1], to demonstrate your understanding of the Fedora Packaging > Guidelines. My first review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575452
(In reply to Pawel Stolowski from comment #9) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > > @Pawel, before I approve this review and sponsor you into the maintainers > > group, I'd like you to do five non-binding reviews of other packages in the > > review queue[1], to demonstrate your understanding of the Fedora Packaging > > Guidelines. > > My first review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575452 Try this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 Please post the review here, not in the bug.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
SPEC and SRPM's urls have been expired
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
I’m no longer interested in packaging this software, closing the ticket.