Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server.git/plain/go-fdo-server.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/srpm-builds/09632334/go-fdo-server-git20250930.825da0b-0.1.fc41.src.rpm Description: go-fdo-server provides golang-based servers that perform edge device on-boarding as defined by the FIDO Alliance Device Onboard specification. Fedora Account System Username: kgiusti
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9632465 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09632465-go-fdo-server/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd service file(s) in go-fdo-server-manufacturer, go-fdo-server-rendezvous, go-fdo-server-owner Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets 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 URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/@fedora-iot/fedora-iot/go-fdo-server.git/plain/go-fdo-server.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-iot/fedora-iot/srpm-builds/09639487/go-fdo-server-0-0.20251002121632528382.main.src.rpm
Created attachment 2108340 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9632465 to 9642272
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9642272 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09642272-go-fdo-server/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.
Can you rerun go2rpm with 1.18.0 version and then add all the subpackages? $ go2rpm -p vendor --name go-fdo-server github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo-server This should clean the spec of things like combined_license or Source0
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server.git/plain/go-fdo-server.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/srpm-builds/09687700/go-fdo-server-git20251014.a84153b-0.1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2109719 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9642272 to 9688452
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9688452 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09688452-go-fdo-server/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.
- Remove: > #%%global tag v0.0.0 > #%%global commit 08a576eb601fcdb94ee7fa219c16c02834a649e5 - Add something like this after %global goipath: %global commit e48986e6b56ae67f738a2543b5bd2a01e016668c - Version is 0 > Version: git20251014.a84153b - gometa -L -f should be before on top of Name as the template does - Source0 should be %{gosource}, why do you specify it manually? > Source0: go-fdo-server-git20251014.a84153b.tar.gz - Source1 should be %{archivename}-vendor.tar.bz2 not %{name}-%{version}-vendor.tar.gz > Source1: %{name}-%{version}-vendor.tar.gz - License is missing in the main package. Add: %license vendor/modules.txt
(In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #11) > - Remove: > > > #%%global tag v0.0.0 > > #%%global commit 08a576eb601fcdb94ee7fa219c16c02834a649e5 > OK > - Add something like this after %global goipath: > > %global commit e48986e6b56ae67f738a2543b5bd2a01e016668c > OK > - Version is 0 > > > Version: git20251014.a84153b > OK > - gometa -L -f should be before on top of Name as the template does > If we don't set `%global commit` we need to put the gometa macro after `Version:` tag as per documentation. That's the reason of moving it > - Source0 should be %{gosource}, why do you specify it manually? > > > Source0: go-fdo-server-git20251014.a84153b.tar.gz The original spec file contains %{gosource} but it looks like the URL contains a modified version. > > - Source1 should be %{archivename}-vendor.tar.bz2 not > %{name}-%{version}-vendor.tar.gz > > > Source1: %{name}-%{version}-vendor.tar.gz > The reason for this is that `%{archivename}` macro didn't expand/does not exist in CentOS > - License is missing in the main package. Add: > > %license vendor/modules.txt If we add that line we get an rpmlint warning: RPM build warnings: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server I guess that file is already included by `%files -f %{go_vendor_license_filelist}`
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server.git/plain/go-fdo-server.spec?h=master SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/srpm-builds/09692429/go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251015git6aaf449.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2109876 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9688452 to 9692464
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9692464 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09692464-go-fdo-server/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/fido-device-onboard-go-fdo-server-89/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09693526-go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/fido-device-onboard-go-fdo-server-89/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09693526-go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251016gitc52d106.fc44.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server.git/plain/go-fdo-server.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/srpm-builds/09695202/go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251016gita2d258a.fc41.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
Hi Mikel - sorry for the churn, we've been making a few changes to get our upstream packit integration working with the new specfile. Things should settled now, posting the results of the copr build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/build/9695202 Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/go-fdo- server/srpm-unpacked/go-fdo-server.spec See: (this test has no URL) go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: tmpfile-not-in-filelist /etc/go-fdo-server go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go-fdo-server go-fdo-server-manufacturer.noarch: W: no-documentation go-fdo-server-owner.noarch: W: no-documentation go-fdo-server-rendezvous.noarch: W: no-documentation go-fdo-server.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: go-fdo-server-a2d258a47464017cea850bfd60d2439656374543-vendor.tar.bz2 go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/sqlite/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/LICENSE:/usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: empty-%pre go-fdo-server-manufacturer.noarch: W: empty-%pre go-fdo-server-owner.noarch: W: empty-%pre go-fdo-server-rendezvous.noarch: W: empty-%pre go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/sqlite/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/sqlite/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/github.com/fido-device-onboard/go-fdo/fsim/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/PATENTS go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/term/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/term/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/term/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/PATENTS go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/term/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/PATENTS go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/time/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/time/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/time/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/term/LICENSE go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/time/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/PATENTS go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/time/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/PATENTS go-fdo-server.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/time/PATENTS /usr/share/licenses/go-fdo-server/vendor/golang.org/x/term/PATENTS 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 27 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9696630 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09696630-go-fdo-server/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9696633 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09696633-go-fdo-server/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.
Hi Mikel just a quick update. I've been trying to fix this review issue: Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/go-fdo- server/srpm-unpacked/go-fdo-server.spec See: (this test has no URL) I've looked into it a bit and I think this is a false negative: the check CheckSpecAsInSRPM verifies that the spec filename "go-fdo-server.spec" matches the prefix of the SRPM file "go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251021gita2d258a.fc44.src.rpm" which it obviously does. So I put some debug tracing into the fedora-review tool and it turns out that the test is incorrectly checking the *filename of Source0*, not the SRPM as intended. I've opened a bug against fedora-review for this: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/534 For what it's worth selectively running just the CheckSpecAsInSRPM (e.g. edora-review --single CheckSpecAsInSRPM --rpm-spec -n tmp/go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251021gita2d258a.fc44.src.rpm) passes as I would expect. What do you think? Can we ignore that warning?
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/go-fdo-server.git/plain/go-fdo-server.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kgiusti/go-fdo-server/srpm-builds/09717570/go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251022git1b0fd23.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2110474 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9696633 to 9717602
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9717602 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2400470-go-fdo-server/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09717602-go-fdo-server/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.
Golang Package Review ============== This package was generated using go2rpm and Go Vendor Tools, 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. - [?] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution. (Some Go projects include utility binaries with very generic names) - [?] There are no `%{_bindir}/*` wildcards in %files. (go2rpm includes these by default) - [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. - [-] GO_LDFLAGS are set correctly. 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. - [ ] Consider configuring Packit service to help with maintenance
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-fdo-server
FEDORA-2025-f5ae46ffe1 (go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251022git1b0fd23.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f5ae46ffe1
FEDORA-2025-f5ae46ffe1 (go-fdo-server-0-0.1.20251022git1b0fd23.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Looking for the same issue. Bumped into your thread. Thanks for creating it. Looking forward for solution https://www.unipass.com.co