Bug 1804346 - Review Request: operator-sdk
Summary: Review Request: operator-sdk
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1820608
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-02-18 18:00 UTC by Leonardo Rossetti
Modified: 2021-10-02 00:46 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-10-02 00:46:16 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Leonardo Rossetti 2020-02-18 18:00:26 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedora-infra.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/operator-sdk-rpm/operator-sdk.spec

SRPM URL: https://fedora-infra.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/operator-sdk-rpm/operator-sdk-0.15.2-1.fc31.src.rpm

Description:
Kubernetes operator sdk framework and tooling that is installed as a rpm package.
It uses/needs the default go build tooling in order to work.

Fedora Account System Username: lrossett

Comment 1 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2020-02-20 07:18:41 UTC
It's a Golang package, so please apply Golang guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/ .

Comment 2 Leonardo Rossetti 2020-02-20 10:30:22 UTC
I have question around go dependencies: not all dependencies of the project are available as a rpm package which makes the spec file unable to resolve it in with the "BuildRequires" directive - should I add those dependencies as rpm packages before?

Otheriwse it will need to use the default go tooling to resolve those dependencies which is not possible if I got it right.

Comment 3 Pierre-YvesChibon 2020-02-20 10:46:53 UTC
> should I add those dependencies as rpm packages before?

And the answer is yes, welcome to the fabulous world of dependencies :)

Comment 4 Package Review 2021-04-04 00:45:21 UTC
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.

Comment 5 Package Review 2021-05-04 00:45:25 UTC
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.

Comment 6 Package Review 2021-10-02 00:46:16 UTC
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.


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