Spec URL: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-derekparker-trie.spec SRPM URL: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-derekparker-trie-0-0.1.20220618git1fdf38b.fc37.src.rpm Description: Data structure and relevant algorithms for extremely fast prefix/fuzzy string searching. Fedora Account System Username: fuller
Unofficial review: 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/golang-github- derekparker-trie/2098379-golang-github-derekparker- trie/licensecheck.txt [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(golang-github-benesch-cgosymbolizer- devel, ... golang-github-azure-amqp-common-devel) Rest of entries skipped due to length [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 [?]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [?]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [?]: 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 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). [?]: 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. [?]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/derekparker/trie/archive/1fdf38b7b0e910da20b2b13ebe10c09b76d3ae50/trie-1fdf38b7b0e910da20b2b13ebe10c09b76d3ae50.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e0a71715aabda81c55cf62cdd6180ded3f55cdb2fd068cf3bacba873f8202c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e0a71715aabda81c55cf62cdd6180ded3f55cdb2fd068cf3bacba873f8202c9 Requires -------- golang-github-derekparker-trie-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-derekparker-trie-devel: golang(github.com/derekparker/trie) golang(github.com/derekparker/trie)(commit=1fdf38b7b0e910da20b2b13ebe10c09b76d3ae50) golang-github-derekparker-trie-devel golang-ipath(github.com/derekparker/trie) golang-ipath(github.com/derekparker/trie)(commit=1fdf38b7b0e910da20b2b13ebe10c09b76d3ae50) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2098379 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, R, Python, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) Should the test input be in the documentation directory? 2) Should the readme be in the src directory as well as in the documentation directory?
- Shorten the summary to 80 characters max - 1) Should the test input be in the documentation directory? Indeed, renmove it. 2) Should the readme be in the src directory as well as in the documentation directory? In theory no, %doc should be linked directly to the README in the Go tree, but the macro automatize everything and does not take this case into account. @benson_muite : [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. You should indeed check that in the build.log, and mark X or ! appropriately. Send me your other review par email so I can check them too. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - Check passes - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
Thank you both
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-derekparker-trie
FEDORA-2022-bd69682b91 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bd69682b91
FEDORA-2022-bd69682b91 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-d37b6ebc5e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d37b6ebc5e
FEDORA-2022-d8b9b42632 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d8b9b42632
FEDORA-2022-d37b6ebc5e 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d37b6ebc5e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d37b6ebc5e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-d8b9b42632 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d8b9b42632 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d8b9b42632 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
@zebob.m Thanks for the information to check the logs. Tests did pass.
FEDORA-2022-d8b9b42632 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-d37b6ebc5e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.