+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1609038 +++ Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00781200-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00781200-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry-1.1.4-2.src.rpm Koji Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=closed&owner=rga&view=tree&method=all&order=-id Copr Builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rga/compliance-masonry/monitor/ Description: Compliance Masonry is a command-line interface (CLI) that allows users to construct certification documentation using the OpenControl Schema. Fedora Account System Username: rga --- Additional comment from on 2018-07-26 15:27:30 EDT --- This is my first package. I would like to add it to EPEL7, F27, F28, F29, and Rawhide. --- Additional comment from Robert-André Mauchin on 2018-07-26 16:23:57 EDT --- - Use a more meaningful name for your archive: Source0: https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Add a comment above the patch describing why it is needed. - You should unbundle the dependencies and remove the vendor directory in %prep (might take a while). That implies packaging any missing dependency. - It is not ok to apply a patch on some architecture only. The arch detection if needed should be in the patched code itself. - with_bundled isn't defined anywhere. There's a new way to package the Go libraries, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging and samples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ It would be great to convert to the new style for F27-Rawhide and keep the old style for EPEL7. --- Additional comment from on 2018-07-26 18:59:36 EDT --- > - Use a more meaningful name for your archive: > > Source0: https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-% {version}.tar.gz That results in the source url no longer being valid and doesn't that go against the Fedora url guidelines which wants the actual source url? > - Add a comment above the patch describing why it is needed. Will fix > - You should unbundle the dependencies and remove the vendor directory in %prep (might take a while). That implies packaging any missing dependency. This was recommended to me by one of the package wranglers as well as the cri-o people until the GO packaging guidelines are finalized > - It is not ok to apply a patch on some architecture only. The arch detection if needed should be in the patched code itself. Will fix > - with_bundled isn't defined anywhere. Will fix > There's a new way to package the Go libraries, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging and samples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ > > It would be great to convert to the new style for F27-Rawhide and keep the old style for EPEL7. That looks to be a proposal. Does the draft not have precedence? --- Additional comment from Robert-André Mauchin on 2018-07-26 19:13:34 EDT --- (In reply to ralford from comment #3) > > - Use a more meaningful name for your archive: > > > > Source0: https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-% {version}.tar.gz > > That results in the source url no longer being valid and doesn't that go > against the Fedora url guidelines which wants the actual source url? > The source URL I provided is valid, check again. > > - Add a comment above the patch describing why it is needed. > > Will fix > > > - You should unbundle the dependencies and remove the vendor directory in %prep (might take a while). That implies packaging any missing dependency. > > This was recommended to me by one of the package wranglers as well as the > cri-o people until the GO packaging guidelines are finalized > Could take months, packages are already being unbundled. > > - It is not ok to apply a patch on some architecture only. The arch detection if needed should be in the patched code itself. > > Will fix > > > - with_bundled isn't defined anywhere. > > Will fix > > > There's a new way to package the Go libraries, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging and samples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/ > > > > It would be great to convert to the new style for F27-Rawhide and keep the old style for EPEL7. > > That looks to be a proposal. Does the draft not have precedence? Most Go packages have already been converted to the new style this past year. --- Additional comment from on 2018-07-26 20:32:59 EDT --- > The source URL I provided is valid, check again. Doh! My bad. Typed it in wrong. > Could take months, packages are already being unbundled. Okay. Thanks for the review and answering questions. Will work through your comments.
*** Bug 1609038 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Here is an updated rpm with the latest release with the new go macros etc. Updated Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-28-x86_64/00788804-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-28-x86_64/00788804-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry-1.1.5-1.fc28.src.rpm
This package is ready for review. All dependencies are now in Rawhide.
Hi, this is an unofficial review. Please read it for your reference. Summary: - No rpmlint errors and warnings - Koji build success - 2 suggestions on packaging 1. Rpmlint found no 0 errors, 0 warnings! $ curl -O https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rga/compliance-masonry/fedora-28-x86_64/00788804-compliance-masonry/compliance-masonry.s\ pec $ md5sum compliance-masonry.spec 1f6aca8dcd935fc0cdef6f55940c3a02 compliance-masonry.spec $ rpmlint -i compliance-masonry.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 2. Scratch Build by Koji is success. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31363528 3. Others 3.1. vendor folder I found the vendor folder in koji build log but is it required? https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3529/31363529/build.log I found a same golang rpm package that contains BuildRequires directive as your package and it successfully built without vendor folder. I think it means you could remove the vendor folder too if you have no special reasons. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655785 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/golang-github-ovh/0/0.2.20181207gitba5adb4.fc30/data/logs/x86_64/build.log Reference: The packaging guideline says ``` Software which downloads code bundles from the internet in order to be functional or useful is not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora (regardless of whether the downloaded code would be acceptable to be packaged in Fedora as a proper dependency). ``` https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_code 3.2. Naming compliance-masonry should be golang-github-compliance-masonry. I think you need not to define %goname in your spec file because the %gometa macro defines it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging#Spec_preamble:_.25.7Bgoipath.7D.2C_.25.7Bforgeurl.7D_and_.25gometa Reference: The golang naming guidlines which is still in WIP provides the package naming guideline. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Package_Names gofed is another solution that helps you to generate your spec file. https://github.com/gofed/gofed#spec-file-generator Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi
Ignore my comment about Naming because the following guideline says a binary package do not need a "golang" prefix and I think your package is a binary package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Packaging_Binaries Thanks, Hirotaka Wakabayashi
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.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.