Bug 2268011 - Review Request: go-vendor-tools - Tools for handling Go library vendoring in Fedora
Summary: Review Request: go-vendor-tools - Tools for handling Go library vendoring in ...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mikel Olasagasti Uranga
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2024-03-05 23:48 UTC by Maxwell G
Modified: 2024-03-28 22:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2024-03-28 22:03:23 UTC
Type: ---
mikel: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Fedora Review Template (10.63 KB, text/plain)
2024-03-05 23:49 UTC, Maxwell G
no flags Details

Description Maxwell G 2024-03-05 23:48:20 UTC
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/go-vendor-tools/go-vendor-tools.spec
SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/go-vendor-tools/go-vendor-tools-0.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

go-vendor-tools provides tools and macros for handling Go library vendoring in

Comment 1 Maxwell G 2024-03-05 23:49:51 UTC
Created attachment 2020260 [details]
Fedora Review Template

FedoraReview is currently broken. I uploaded a template generated with https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/513 applied to FedoraReview.

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-05 23:50:38 UTC
Copr build:

Review template:

Please take a look if any issues were found.

This comment was created by the fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 3 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga 2024-03-09 17:05:47 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0
     and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No
     copyright* MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License",
     "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License". 5
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
     /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/lib/python3.12
[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.
[-]: 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
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 3487 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define tag v%{version}
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

Checking: go-vendor-tools-0.0.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
========================================= rpmlint session starts ========================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpijsmbjll')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

go-vendor-tools+all.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage')
go-vendor-tools+all.noarch: E: spelling-error ('metapackage', '%description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage')
go-vendor-tools.noarch: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', 'Summary(en_US) vendoring -> endorsing')
go-vendor-tools.noarch: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', '%description -l en_US vendoring -> endorsing')
go-vendor-tools.src: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', 'Summary(en_US) vendoring -> endorsing')
go-vendor-tools.src: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', '%description -l en_US vendoring -> endorsing')
go-vendor-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go_vendor_archive
go-vendor-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go_vendor_license
go-vendor-tools+all.noarch: W: no-documentation
=== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings, 30 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.4 s ===

Rpmlint (installed packages)
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "go-vendor-tools+all".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "go-vendor-tools".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
checks: 32, packages: 2

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 

Source checksums
https://gitlab.com/gotmax23/go-vendor-tools/-/archive/v0.0.1/go-vendor-tools-v0.0.1.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c88387dba79497f9ffccd67455e52fc4ec53af2aeb0ff4ae7f7970612d309c85
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c88387dba79497f9ffccd67455e52fc4ec53af2aeb0ff4ae7f7970612d309c85

go-vendor-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (askalono-cli or trivy)

go-vendor-tools+all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -prn go-vendor-tools
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, R, fonts, Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP

Comment 4 Maxwell G 2024-03-09 23:13:59 UTC
Thanks, Mikel! I'll import the package shortly. There's still one or two things I'd like to iron out.

Comment 5 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-03-09 23:14:41 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-vendor-tools

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2024-03-28 21:58:18 UTC
FEDORA-2024-be0486a134 (go-vendor-tools-0.3.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2024-03-28 22:03:23 UTC
FEDORA-2024-be0486a134 (go-vendor-tools-0.3.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.