https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239273 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> --- OK, so go is a bit outside my sphere of expertise, but here we go. 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/gocode/src/github.com/BurntSushi/toml-test See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - Release tag not in required form - 0.1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} would be correct- note "." between the 1 and the git tag. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go Other issues below. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1239273-golang-github- BurntSushi-toml-test/licensecheck.txt It would be better if these files had a license header at the top explaining what license they're issued under. Worth filing an issue upstream and asking them to do so. toml-test-85f50d0991feaca39fd7c3ad1047acbf9df90859/json.go toml-test-85f50d0991feaca39fd7c3ad1047acbf9df90859/main.go toml-test-85f50d0991feaca39fd7c3ad1047acbf9df90859/results.go [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/BurntSushi(golang-github-BurntSushi- toml-devel) This looks like a collision with the BurntSushi/toml (same upstream maintainer), which is already packaged for Fedora. It isn't clear to me which of the two packages should be the canonical one for this directory, but this needs resolving, and one package then should probably require the other. Or perhaps it's ok for both packages to own the directory as long as there are no file collisions in the directory. This needs a careful audit. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It's only a draft at present, but the pending Go packaging guidelines say: If you are using golang, DWZ is currently incompatible with binaries produced by it (Bug 995136). To get at least partial DWZ optimization use: # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995136#c12 %global _dwz_low_mem_die_limit 0 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go [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. [x]: 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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. See above - possible 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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. But I don't think you can resolve this in this package, as it's a product of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184221 [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Does the package build on other archs with gccgo? In any case, specification of the archs to build on should be done according to the draft go guidelines... The golang compiler currently only supports x86, x86_64, and Arm (32- and 64-bit). Binaries should set ExclusiveArch so that we only attempt to build packages on those arches. The golang package provides the %{go_arches} macro for this: ExclusiveArch: %{go_arches} [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- github-BurntSushi-toml-test-devel Shouldn't the -devel package require the main package? [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil} Add a comment saying why %define and not %global [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test-0.2.0-0.1git85f50d0.fc22.x86_64.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test-devel-0.2.0-0.1git85f50d0.fc22.noarch.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test-0.2.0-0.1git85f50d0.fc22.src.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/toml-test golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/toml-test ----> Think this is ok - go only statically links. golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/toml-test/tests/valid/empty.toml ----->Seems ok - file is supposed to be empty. golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary toml-test 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/toml-test golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/bin/toml-test golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/toml-test golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/toml-test/tests/valid/empty.toml golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary toml-test 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang Provides -------- golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test: golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test(x86-64) toml-test golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test-devel: golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml-test) golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-test-devel Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BurntSushi/toml-test/archive/85f50d0991feaca39fd7c3ad1047acbf9df90859/toml-test-85f50d0991feaca39fd7c3ad1047acbf9df90859.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : daa39e2fe270a6fedf6093a2d150de7d31daa82f25b485a7d43513a162a73dce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : daa39e2fe270a6fedf6093a2d150de7d31daa82f25b485a7d43513a162a73dce Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1239273 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review