Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bgilbert/butane/butane.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bgilbert/butane/butane-0.11.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Butane translates human-readable Butane Configs into machine-readable Ignition configs for provisioning Fedora CoreOS machines. Fedora Account System Username: bgilbert This is a package rename; the software is currently packaged as fedora-coreos-config-transpiler. The project has been renamed upstream.
- Remove: %gopkg since you're not including it in %files, I guess you don't need it as a library. - Since you are bundling I think you could build with GO111MODULE=on %global gomodulesmode GO111MODULE=on This hack is then unnecessary: # With GO111MODULE=off, as set by %%gobuild, `go build` can't find the pflag # package in the vendor directory. strace shows that it doesn't even look # in vendor/. This doesn't happen with other dependencies, and I have no # explanation. Hack around it by explicitly including pflag in the GOPATH. # mkdir -p %gobuilddir/src/github.com/spf13 # ln -s ../../../../vendor/github.com/spf13/pflag %gobuilddir/src/github.com/spf13/pflag - Why do you redefine gobuild for the cross compilation, just doing: echo "Building macOS Butane..." export GOOS=darwin export GOARCH=amd64 %gobuild -o butane-x86_64-apple-darwin internal/main.go echo "Building Windows Butane..." export GOOS=windows export GOARCH=amd64 %gobuild -o butane-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu.exe internal/main.go should work. Is there something I'm missing there? - One test fails on 32 bits arches: --- FAIL: TestReportCorrelation (0.02s) validate_test.go:239: Error Trace: validate_test.go:239 Error: Not equal: expected: 8 actual : 2 Test: TestReportCorrelation Messages: #4: incorrect error line, raw false FAIL exit status 1 See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65319224 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65319223
I've verified that the Obsoletes and Provides are what we expect as per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages. Definitely not a blocker, but the description could probably be updated to not talk just about FCOS now that we're trying to be more generic.
Thanks for the reviews! > - Remove: > > %gopkg > > since you're not including it in %files, I guess you don't need it as a library. Done. > %global gomodulesmode GO111MODULE=on Ah, great, I don't think that existed when FCCT was first packaged. Done. > export GOOS=darwin > export GOARCH=amd64 > %gobuild -o butane-x86_64-apple-darwin internal/main.go Unfortunately that doesn't seem to work for cross builds: /usr/lib/golang/pkg/tool/linux_amd64/link -o $WORK/b001/exe/a.out -importcfg $WORK/b001/importcfg.link -installsuffix shared -buildmode=pie -buildid=9wVtOu_M646dIl94S3eg/0oAfqKUuLR0ccS8QGUu2/ddJaS9ygXJ8nNUSB7BfF/9wVtOu_M646dIl94S3eg -X github.com/coreos/butane/internal/version.Raw=0.11.0 -X github.com/coreos/butane/version=0.11.0 -B 0x0639699e6466d45b198add371c7e00b3788f0cc2 -extldflags "-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld " -extld=gcc $WORK/b001/_pkg_.a # command-line-arguments /usr/lib/golang/pkg/tool/linux_amd64/link: running gcc failed: exit status 1 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find 1144: No such file or directory /tmp/go-link-378017167/go.o: file not recognized: file format not recognized collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > - One test fails on 32 bits arches: Whoops, good catch. That's an old bug that was uncovered by a new test in 0.11.0. Fixed. > the description could probably be updated to not talk just about FCOS now that we're trying to be more generic. Done.
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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "Expat License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "ISC License". 134 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jlebon/butane- review/1946365-butane/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. - Package bundles a bunch of stuff. This is not new (we bundled before the rename as well), and isn't special among golang-based packages. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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 266240 bytes in 21 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in butane- nonlinux [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. (I omitted a bunch of misguided rpmlint typo errors and warnings.) LGTM!
And now with my Fedora account.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1948051 ***
This bug is failing in SCM requests because its fedora-review flag was originally set by an email not tied to FAS. Retrying in bug 1948051.
Correction: bug 1948053. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1948053 ***