Bug 2284358 - Re-review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir - GObject-introspection based bindings generator for Go
Summary: Re-review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir - GObject-introspection base...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Beck Liu
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-06-03 05:47 UTC by Felix Wang
Modified: 2026-02-01 09:46 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-02-01 09:46:08 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
shattuckite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Felix Wang 2024-06-03 05:47:10 UTC
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-3.0.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: GObject-introspection based bindings generator for Go
Fedora Account System Username: topazus

package rename of deepin-gir-generator.

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-06-03 16:11:48 UTC
The ticket summary is not in the correct format.
Expected:

    Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>

Found:

    Re-review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir - GObject-introspection based bindings generator for Go

As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to
be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a
build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/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 2 Beck Liu 2024-06-04 02:27:32 UTC

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/


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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src,
     /usr/share, /usr/share/doc, /usr, /usr/share/licenses
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode,
     /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share, /usr/share/doc, /usr,
     /usr/share/licenses
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
     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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 2038 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[!]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-devel-3.0.4-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-3.0.4-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdgfirxya')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/.goipath
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-devel".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/archive/v3.0.4/go-gir-3.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7b60429dd142c12b2e42e60fd49bb3aa1ec0c8452a1b6989bc2d47a001254ffd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b60429dd142c12b2e42e60fd49bb3aa1ec0c8452a1b6989bc2d47a001254ffd


Requires
--------
golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem



Provides
--------
golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-devel:
    golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir)
    golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/generator/gi)
    golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/gio-2.0)
    golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/glib-2.0)
    golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/gobject-2.0)
    golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir/gudev-1.0)
    golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir-devel
    golang-ipath(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-gir)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Python, PHP, Java, R, fonts, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 3 Beck Liu 2024-06-04 02:42:24 UTC
Golang Package Review
==============

This package was generated using go2rpm, which simplifies the review.
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


- [x] The specfile is sane.
- [x] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct identifiers.
- [x] The package builds successfully in mock.
- [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review).
- [x] There are no relevant rpmlint errors.
- [x] The package runs tests in %check.
- [x] `%goipath` is set correctly.
- [x] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution.
- [x] There are no `%{_bindir}/*` wildcards in %files. (go2rpm includes these by default)
- [x] The package complies with the Golang and general Packaging Guidelines.

Package approved!

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-06-04 02:44:13 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-linuxdeepin-gir


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