Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-git-gcfg.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-git-gcfg-1.5.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Go-gcfg/gcfg fork for usage in src-d/go-git. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-git-gcfg.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-git-gcfg-1.5.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88926035
Package is approved 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fuller/fedora-review/2102846-golang-github-git- gcfg/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: ... [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. [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 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: [-]: 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. [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]: %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. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/go-git/gcfg/archive/v1.5.0/gcfg-1.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 662e46a93aba5ffe383e55597ce5749447e5c8e9409b1452f5790bfd6e1f8a11 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 662e46a93aba5ffe383e55597ce5749447e5c8e9409b1452f5790bfd6e1f8a11 Requires -------- golang-github-git-gcfg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(gopkg.in/warnings.v0) Provides -------- golang-github-git-gcfg-devel: golang(github.com/go-git/gcfg) golang(github.com/go-git/gcfg/scanner) golang(github.com/go-git/gcfg/token) golang(github.com/go-git/gcfg/types) golang-github-git-gcfg-devel golang-ipath(github.com/go-git/gcfg)
*** Bug 2002715 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-git-gcfg
You may want to change the Summary and Description from `src-d/go-git` to `go-git/go-git` when importing.
FEDORA-2022-c82d5baabb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c82d5baabb
FEDORA-2022-c82d5baabb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-695e249d7c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-695e249d7c
FEDORA-2022-291646b323 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-291646b323
FEDORA-2022-695e249d7c 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-2022-695e249d7c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-695e249d7c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-291646b323 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-2022-291646b323 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-291646b323 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-695e249d7c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-291646b323 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 2120421 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***