Spec URL: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-task.spec SRPM URL: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-task-3.12.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: task runner and build tool that aims to be simpler and easier to use than the alternatives Fedora Account System Username: fuller
The package conflicts with `task`. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_incompatible_binary_files_with_conflicting_naming_and_stubborn_upstreams Are you sure that the package name should be "golang-github-task"? Task is taken already, but maybe "go-task" would be better? I'm mentioning this since it's not a library but an application. The package could benefit from a -doc subpackage. 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* MIT License", "MIT License". 189 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora- review/2093467-golang-github-task/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(...) Since all golang packages do this, I'm giving it a pass. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/arthur/fedora-review/2093467-golang-github-task/upstream- unpacked/Source0/task-3.12.1/testdata/include_with_vars/include [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. [!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 634880 bytes in 40 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- github-task-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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/go-task/task/archive/v3.12.1/task-3.12.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 771dc73d1cc72df7d6584415a6dc2cddff65026afa0396debd5fb05e8118c625 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 771dc73d1cc72df7d6584415a6dc2cddff65026afa0396debd5fb05e8118c625 Requires -------- golang-github-task (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) golang-github-task-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/fatih/color) golang(github.com/go-task/slim-sprig) golang(github.com/joho/godotenv) golang(github.com/mattn/go-zglob) golang(github.com/mitchellh/hashstructure/v2) golang(github.com/radovskyb/watcher) golang(github.com/spf13/pflag) golang(golang.org/x/sync/errgroup) golang(gopkg.in/yaml.v3) golang(mvdan.cc/sh/v3/expand) golang(mvdan.cc/sh/v3/interp) golang(mvdan.cc/sh/v3/shell) golang(mvdan.cc/sh/v3/syntax) golang-github-task-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-task-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- golang-github-task: golang-github-task golang-github-task(x86-64) golang-github-task-devel: golang(github.com/go-task/task) golang(github.com/go-task/task/args) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/compiler) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/compiler/v2) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/compiler/v3) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/execext) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/hash) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/logger) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/output) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/status) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/summary) golang(github.com/go-task/task/internal/templater) golang(github.com/go-task/task/taskfile) golang(github.com/go-task/task/taskfile/read) golang-github-task-devel golang-ipath(github.com/go-task/task) golang-github-task-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) golang-github-task-debuginfo golang-github-task-debuginfo(x86-64) golang-github-task-debugsource: golang-github-task-debugsource golang-github-task-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2093467 -L rpms Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, C/C++, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/arthur/fedora-review/rpms/golang-github-mattn-zglob-devel-0.0.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm /home/arthur/fedora-review/rpms/golang-github-radovskyb-watcher-devel-1.0.7-1.20220423gitv1.0.7.fc37.noarch.rpm
Thanks for the review I think for consistency within golang on Fedora, the devel package should be golang-github-task(-task?)-devel, whereas the rpm providing the binary could be something else (go-task seems like a good choice: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_go_binary_packages) New files: SPEC: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-task.spec SRPM: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-task-3.12.1-1.fc37.src.rpm
Thank you for the changes! Only a small issue left, the description is missing from the -doc and go-task package.
Fixed: SPEC: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-task.spec SRPM: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-task-3.12.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Thanks
For the go-task package, I would suggest to just add the description like this: %description -n go-task %{common_description} But I leave the decision to you. Package approved! And thank you for your help.
I'll take the suggestion - Thank you
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-task
FEDORA-2022-0fe41ad826 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0fe41ad826
FEDORA-2022-cf561ddb7c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cf561ddb7c
FEDORA-2022-cf561ddb7c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-cf561ddb7c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cf561ddb7c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-0fe41ad826 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0fe41ad826 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0fe41ad826 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-cf561ddb7c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0fe41ad826 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.