Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.77.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: JFrog CLI is a client that provides a simple interface that automates access to the JFrog products. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9255433 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09255433-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file help.go is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec looks good, but can you apply 1.17.1 go2rpm template?
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.fc43.src.rpm - update to 2.78.3 - use go2rpm 1.17.1 spec template
Created attachment 2103371 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9255433 to 9405649
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9405649 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09405649-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file help.go is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Thanks for updating the spec! > E: summary-too-long JFrog CLI is a client that provides a simple interface that automates access to the JFrog products Something like this might be OK: CLI to automate access to JFrog products > %{_bindir}/jfrog-cli Upstream uses `jf` for the binary, why not in this case? I can't find any other app using `jf` with `dnf provides /usr/bin/jf`. Also, it seems this CLI supports shell completions, can you add them? https://docs.jfrog-applications.jfrog.io/jfrog-applications/jfrog-cli/shell-auto-completion
(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #6) > Thanks for updating the spec! > > > E: summary-too-long JFrog CLI is a client that provides a simple interface that automates access to the JFrog products > > Something like this might be OK: CLI to automate access to JFrog products Fixed. > > %{_bindir}/jfrog-cli > > Upstream uses `jf` for the binary, why not in this case? I can't find any > other app using `jf` with `dnf provides /usr/bin/jf`. Corrected. It used to be called jfrog-cli and I kept the name for no good reason. > Also, it seems this CLI supports shell completions, can you add them? > https://docs.jfrog-applications.jfrog.io/jfrog-applications/jfrog-cli/shell- > auto-completion How? I get an error if I add this to the %build section: for cmd in completion/shells; do %gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd done ... github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli/completion/shells: build constraints exclude all Go files in /builddir/build/BUILD/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-build/jfrog-cli-2.78.3/completion/shells
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-2.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2103811 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9405649 to 9435068
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9435068 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09435068-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file help.go is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
> Corrected. It used to be called jfrog-cli and I kept the name for no good reason. You can create a soft-link if you want to have both names. `node-exporter` does that for example to keep old name. > How? I get an error if I add this to the %build section: > for cmd in completion/shells; do > %gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd > done > > ... > github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli/completion/shells: build constraints exclude all Go files in /builddir/build/BUILD/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-build/jfrog-cli-2.78.3/completion/shells Can you try the way `doctl` spec does? in %build: %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion bash > jf.bash %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion fish > jf.fish %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion zsh > jf.zsh https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/doctl/blob/rawhide/f/doctl.spec#_51
(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #11) > > Corrected. It used to be called jfrog-cli and I kept the name for no good reason. > > You can create a soft-link if you want to have both names. `node-exporter` > does that for example to keep old name. No need. Since this is a new package to Fedora, I'll just follow current upstream naming. > > How? I get an error if I add this to the %build section: > > for cmd in completion/shells; do > > %gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd > > done > > > > ... > > github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli/completion/shells: build constraints exclude all Go files in /builddir/build/BUILD/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-build/jfrog-cli-2.78.3/completion/shells > > Can you try the way `doctl` spec does? > > in %build: > > %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion bash > jf.bash > %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion fish > jf.fish > %{gobuilddir}/bin/jf completion zsh > jf.zsh > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/doctl/blob/rawhide/f/doctl.spec#_51 Thanks for the pointer. Done! Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/jfrog-cli/jfrog-cli-2.78.3-3.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2104092 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9435068 to 9444136
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9444136 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2378912-jfrog-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09444136-jfrog-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file help.go is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Golang Package Review ============== This package was generated using go2rpm, which simplifies the review. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated - [x] The latest version is packaged or packaging an earlier version is justified. - [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. - [x] The package does not use `%gometa -f` if it has dependents that still build for %ix86. - [x] The package complies with the Golang and general Packaging Guidelines. Package approved! On import, don't forget to do the following: - [ ] Add the package to release-monitoring.org - [ ] Give go-sig privileges (at least commit) on the package - [ ] Close the review bug by referencing its ID in the rpm changelog and the Bodhi ticket. Thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jfrog-cli
FEDORA-2025-233d557ff7 (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-233d557ff7
FEDORA-2025-233d557ff7 (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4eef81d9fd (jfrog-cli-2.78.3-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.