Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hickford/git-credential-oauth-rpm-spec/main/git-credential-oauth.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/matthickford/git-credential-oauth/srpm-builds/05063649/git-credential-oauth-0.1.5-1.src.rpm COPR: successful build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/matthickford/git-credential-oauth/build/5063649/ Description: A Git credential helper that securely authenticates to GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket and other forges using OAuth. The first time you push, the helper will open a browser window to authenticate. Subsequent pushes within the cache timeout require no interaction. Fedora Account System Username: matthickford FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I'm the upstream maintainer if it counts for anything: "Sponsors can also decide to accept an applicant based on other types of contributions. For example, the applicant may be the upstream maintainer for the project" https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#other_contributions
I used go2rpm to generate the spec file above following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/ https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/interests#Go
Self review: package name should be 'git-credential-oauth' because "Source packages that provide a well-known application such as etcd MUST be named after the application. End users do not care about the language their applications are written in."
The Summary line is a bit long; it could be something like "Git credential helper for forges using OAuth". Please make the binary in %files explicit, without the glob. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists Do you need the explicit BuildRequires? That should be handled by %go_generate_buildrequires, no? Sorry, I cannot help with the sponsorship bit.
Thanks. Shortened summary and made binary explicit. Removed explicit BuildRequires (agree not necessary).
I see the others, but don't see the change in %files.
Thanks, I missed that one. Corrected.
Hi, The SPEC is mostly ok. There are only some minor things to fix: 1. Please add `%autochangelog` after `%changelog`, so that the changelog is automatically populated (or populate it manually, but imho is better to use %autochangelog) 2. The license should be `ASL 2.0`, since that's the short name of the Apache-2.0 license After this, I can proceed sponsoring you
Thanks Fabio 1. Added `%autochangelog` 2. According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names "The License: field for new packages as of July 2022 must be filled with the appropriate SPDX license identifier" so I think `Apache-2.0` is correct, like the example at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_license_expressions
That is true, sorry for that. I probably have an old RPMlint on this machine. I've added you to the packager group. go2rpm package, fedora-review is correct: - The specfile is sane. - License is correct - Builds successfully in mock - No rpmlint errors - %check section passes - The latest version is packaged - The package complies with the Packaging Guidelines. 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. (rhbz#BUG_ID) Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-credential-oauth
FEDORA-2022-fc5b7cf40d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fc5b7cf40d
FEDORA-2022-fc5b7cf40d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.