Spec URL: https://www.copperi.com/fedora/golang-github-ssor-bom.spec SRPM URL: https://www.copperi.com/fedora/golang-github-ssor-bom-0-0.1.20211125git6386211.fc36.src.rpm Description: Small tools for cleaning bom from byte array or reader Fedora Account System Username: copperi
Hi Jan, - Changelog should never have %{dist} tag: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/#_dist_in_the_release_field - You can adopt rpmautospec for Release and Changelog. This would automatically fix previous issue. https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/
Thanks, removed %{dist} from the changelog.
Adding fedora-review+ as package correct. Please, take the following suggestions for next reviews: - you should link spec and srpm files with a valid URL. https://copperi.com's cert is not correct. - when changing the spec file regenerate the srpm file also. Be careful when importing the spec to the git repo to ensure you're using the correct one. - you can use `go2rpm -r` to enable rpmautospec for future specs 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", "MIT License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review/review-golang-github-ssor- bom/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: [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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ssor/bom/archive/6386211fdfcf24c0bfbdaceafd02849ed9a8a509/bom-6386211fdfcf24c0bfbdaceafd02849ed9a8a509.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b41555d6a36de28fd1b6b47171b4375d7ae3b38955205a5286fb190bd1ae37cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b41555d6a36de28fd1b6b47171b4375d7ae3b38955205a5286fb190bd1ae37cd Requires -------- golang-github-ssor-bom-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-ssor-bom-devel: golang(github.com/ssor/bom) golang(github.com/ssor/bom)(commit=6386211fdfcf24c0bfbdaceafd02849ed9a8a509) golang-github-ssor-bom-devel golang-ipath(github.com/ssor/bom) golang-ipath(github.com/ssor/bom)(commit=6386211fdfcf24c0bfbdaceafd02849ed9a8a509) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/review/golang-github-ssor-bom.spec 2021-12-04 06:21:26.000000000 +0100 +++ /tmp/review/review-golang-github-ssor-bom/srpm-unpacked/golang-github-ssor-bom.spec 2021-11-25 19:39:42.000000000 +0100 @@ -42,5 +42,5 @@ %changelog -* Thu Nov 25 2021 Jan Kuparinen <copperi> - 0-0.1.20211125git6386211 +* Thu Nov 25 2021 Jan Kuparinen <copperi> - 0-0.1%{?dist}.20211125git6386211 - Initial package Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n golang-github-ssor-bom Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Also: - When you import this package, don't forget to add `Fixes rhbz#2026791` to the rpm changelog and/or manually add this bug to the Bodhi update so it gets marked as CLOSED. - You should give go-sig admin privileges when the package is imported, as well.
Fixed URLs to match cert name Recreated src.rpm to match .spec file
Package is now in repositories, closing review.