Spec URL: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-sajari-fuzzy.spec SRPM URL: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-1.0.0-1.20221015git6a3bdc4.fc38.src.rpm Description: Spell checking and fuzzy search suggestion written in Go Fedora Account System Username: fuller
I think the only issue to address is the size of data/big.txt, which you elected to install as documentation (see below). I was not sure of this file's purpose, but the package does export a SampleEnglish function, which seems to use it. That function opens big.txt using os.Open("data/big.txt"). Does this put a restriction on the working directory of a program that uses this package? I only ask because that might lead to a different place to install big.txt. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6502400 bytes in 2 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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. [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/sajari/fuzzy/.goipath golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/sajari/fuzzy/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-devel/README.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sajari/fuzzy/archive/6a3bdc4b73641edc166d3b19be19ad2a83f37616/fuzzy-6a3bdc4b73641edc166d3b19be19ad2a83f37616.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0208e59ae14352ddd98d93b5e0cc1be2428a67d30d6576606c9b85904cdaa3b0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0208e59ae14352ddd98d93b5e0cc1be2428a67d30d6576606c9b85904cdaa3b0 Requires -------- golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-devel: golang(github.com/sajari/fuzzy) golang(github.com/sajari/fuzzy)(commit=6a3bdc4b73641edc166d3b19be19ad2a83f37616) golang-github-sajari-fuzzy-devel golang-ipath(github.com/sajari/fuzzy) golang-ipath(github.com/sajari/fuzzy)(commit=6a3bdc4b73641edc166d3b19be19ad2a83f37616)
Thanks for the catch - that file appears to be completely unnecessary, so I removed it The spec and SRPM have been overwritten at the above links
Looks good. Thank you!
Package approved! On import, don't forget to do the following: - Add package to release-monitoring.org - Add package to Koschei. - Give go-sig privileges on package - Close the review bug by referencing it in the rpm changelog and/or the Bodhi ticket.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-sajari-fuzzy
FEDORA-2022-3f45301a1b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3f45301a1b
FEDORA-2022-3f45301a1b 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-2022-3f45301a1b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3f45301a1b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-3f45301a1b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.