Hello Fabian,

You can name golang-github-dgryski-farm more shortly like go-farm because the
package is not a Source packages but a Go binary package. Please see:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/blob/master/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Golang.adoc#_73
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/blob/master/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Golang.adoc#_203

Could you please check if the /usr/bin/go-farm has a right format?
/usr/bin/go-farm seems to be an executable binary file but it doesn't work
in my environment.
```
$ /usr/bin/go-farm 
/usr/bin/go-farm: line 1: syntax error near unexpected token `newline'
/usr/bin/go-farm: line 1: `!<arch>'
$ file /usr/bin/go-farm 
/usr/bin/go-farm: current ar archive
```

Best,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi


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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[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.
     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: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
     github-dgryski-farm-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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-dgryski-farm-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc33.noarch.rpm
          golang-github-dgryski-farm-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc33.src.rpm
golang-github-dgryski-farm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Farmhash -> Farm hash, Farm-hash, Farmhand
golang-github-dgryski-farm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US farmhash -> farm hash, farm-hash, farmhand
golang-github-dgryski-farm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go-farm
golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Farmhash -> Farm hash, Farm-hash, Farmhand
golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US farmhash -> farm hash, farm-hash, farmhand
golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/dgryski/go-farm/.goipath
golang-github-dgryski-farm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Farmhash -> Farm hash, Farm-hash, Farmhand
golang-github-dgryski-farm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US farmhash -> farm hash, farm-hash, farmhand
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/dgryski/go-farm/archive/a6ae2369ad13dc757768086f0cb902728c7e03e5/go-farm-a6ae2369ad13dc757768086f0cb902728c7e03e5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f00849e439599ae1537773e2cd3fa11d6753dcd5af598110f74f8e0f8859be46
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f00849e439599ae1537773e2cd3fa11d6753dcd5af598110f74f8e0f8859be46


Requires
--------
golang-github-dgryski-farm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem



Provides
--------
golang-github-dgryski-farm:
    golang-github-dgryski-farm
    golang-github-dgryski-farm(x86-64)

golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel:
    golang(github.com/dgryski/go-farm)
    golang(github.com/dgryski/go-farm)(commit=a6ae2369ad13dc757768086f0cb902728c7e03e5)
    golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel
    golang-ipath(github.com/dgryski/go-farm)
    golang-ipath(github.com/dgryski/go-farm)(commit=a6ae2369ad13dc757768086f0cb902728c7e03e5)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (68531f4) last change: 2020-05-31
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1821902
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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.

Sorry for my late response because of my early summer vacation. I will check this again this week.

Thanks in advance,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi

Hello Fabian, the noarch package looks good, but please check the rpmlint error
on the arch package.

Here is the result of rpmlint:

1. rpmlint of the x86_64.rpm
```
[build@3bbc8cb38dbc SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/build/dev/packages/RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-dgryski-farm-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc35.x86_64.rpm
(none): E: fatal error while reading /home/build/dev/packages/RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-dgryski-farm-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc35.x86_64.rpm: 'BinariesCheck' object has no attribute 'readelf_parser'
```

2. rpmlint of the noarch.rpm
```
[build@3bbc8cb38dbc SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/build/dev/packages/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc35.noarch.rpm
(none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled.
(none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled.
============================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==============================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.0.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/dgryski/go-farm/.goipath
golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/dgryski/go-farm/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-dgryski-farm-devel/README.md
=============================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ===============================================================
```

3. rpmlint of the src.rpm
```
[build@3bbc8cb38dbc SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/build/dev/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-dgryski-farm-0-0.1.20200407gita6ae236.fc35.src.rpm
(none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled.
(none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled.
============================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==============================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.0.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

=============================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===============================================================
[build@3bbc8cb38dbc SPECS]$ 
```

Thanks in advance,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi

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 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.