Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9382273
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386905-go-fdo-client/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09382273-go-fdo-client/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Just the license dup warning to fix up for final submission. 

LGTM, approved.  

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files


===== 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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 6476 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: go-fdo-client-0-0.1.20250806git837c3ac.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          go-fdo-client-0-0.1.20250806git837c3ac.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmplaq2g6b8')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go-fdo-client
go-fdo-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: go-fdo-client-837c3aca86a3d44344f7edd5703cf13adfc22fc2-vendor.tar.bz2
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/tpm/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim/LICENSE
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/term/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/term/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/PATENTS
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: go-fdo-client-debuginfo-0-0.1.20250806git837c3ac.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpxnhb8lmf')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2

go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/go-fdo-client /lib64/libresolv.so.2
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go-fdo-client
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/tpm/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim/LICENSE
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/term/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/term/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/PATENTS
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo-client/archive/837c3aca86a3d44344f7edd5703cf13adfc22fc2/go-fdo-client-837c3aca86a3d44344f7edd5703cf13adfc22fc2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 166e609f2abfc1792e942600cf971540b144e257c2491b67adb013cf10985b39
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 166e609f2abfc1792e942600cf971540b144e257c2491b67adb013cf10985b39


Requires
--------
go-fdo-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libresolv.so.2()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
go-fdo-client:
    bundled(golang(github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo))
    bundled(golang(github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim))
    bundled(golang(github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/tpm))
    bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-tpm))
    bundled(golang(github.com/google/go-tpm-tools))
    bundled(golang(github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap))
    bundled(golang(github.com/neilotoole/jsoncolor))
    bundled(golang(github.com/spf13/cobra))
    bundled(golang(github.com/spf13/pflag))
    bundled(golang(golang.org/x/sys))
    bundled(golang(golang.org/x/term))
    bundled(golang(hermannm.dev/devlog))
    go-fdo-client
    go-fdo-client(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2386905
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, R, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, fonts, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Hello @kgiusti,
since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package
sponsor before it can be accepted.

A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through
the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future
maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to
packaging.

You can find all active sponsors here:
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/

I created a sponsorship request for you:
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/732
Please take a look and make sure the information is correct.

Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

I'm adding a couple of comments as Go-SIG member.

> # Generated by go2rpm 1.16.0

Can you update to use latest 1.17.1 template?

> %if %{defined rhel} || "%{_arch}" == "i386"

With "%gometa -L -f" arch i386 is already excluded, the check could be removed.

Once imported, please, give go-sig group privileges (at least commit) on the package.

(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #4)
> I'm adding a couple of comments as Go-SIG member.
> 
> > # Generated by go2rpm 1.16.0
> 
> Can you update to use latest 1.17.1 template?
> 
> > %if %{defined rhel} || "%{_arch}" == "i386"
> 
> With "%gometa -L -f" arch i386 is already excluded, the check could be
> removed.
> 
> Once imported, please, give go-sig group privileges (at least commit) on the
> package.

Done - thanks Mikel!

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kgiusti/go-fdo-client/srpm-builds/09441188/go-fdo-client-0-0.1.20250818git837c3ac.fc42.src.rpm
Specfile: https://github.com/kgiusti/go-fdo-packaging/blob/main/fedora/client/go-fdo-client.spec
Diff: 
```
diff --git a/fedora/client/go-fdo-client.spec b/fedora/client/go-fdo-client.spec
index a2011db..96a8bd4 100644
--- a/fedora/client/go-fdo-client.spec
+++ b/fedora/client/go-fdo-client.spec
@@ -1,12 +1,6 @@
-# Generated by go2rpm 1.16.0
+# Generated by go2rpm 1.17.1
 %bcond check 1
 
-# scancode has a lot of dependencies, so it can be disabled for a faster build
-# or when its deps are unavailable.
-%if %{defined rhel} || "%{_arch}" == "i386"
-%global go_vendor_license_check_disable 1
-%endif
-
 # https://github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo-client
 %global goipath         github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo-client
 %global commit          837c3aca86a3d44344f7edd5703cf13adfc22fc2
@@ -56,7 +50,7 @@ install -m 0755 -vp %{gobuilddir}/bin/* %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
 %check
 %go_vendor_license_check -c %{S:2}
 %if %{with check}
-%gocheck
+%gotest ./...
 %endif
 
 %files -f %{go_vendor_license_filelist}
```

Question: rpmlint is complaining about a few things that appear to be related to the vendored code:

go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/tpm/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim/LICENSE
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/term/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE
go-fdo-client.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/term/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-client/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/PATENTS

These are in fact duplicate but across (and within) some of the vendored packages. Is there a recommended way to fix this?  Thanks

Thanks for updating the spec with latest template.

> Question: rpmlint is complaining about a few things that appear to be related to the vendored code:

It's fine, each  module needs to have their own files and having duplicates is common. No need to worry about that.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-fdo-client

FEDORA-2025-0645650e1d (go-fdo-client-0-0.1.20250818git837c3ac.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0645650e1d

FEDORA-2025-0645650e1d (go-fdo-client-0-0.1.20250818git837c3ac.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.