[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #11 from Adam Miller <admiller@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #9)
> 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.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)",
>      "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have
>      unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt
> 
> --- Main source uses the MIT license.
> 
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> 
> --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with
> unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If
> anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves.
> 
> [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.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> 
> --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and
> /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server
> instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of
> /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging
> guidelines for this if any exists)
> 

That is true if the configuration file is for the actual service. The
configuration values here are fed into the systemd unit. However if this has
changed and /etc/sysconfig/ has fallen out of favor for this scenario as well
I'll gladly switch it. I was mostly following along with what other prominent
software written in golang are doing such as docker and kubernetes. 

> 
> [-]: 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.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> 
> --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above.
> 
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>      (~1MB) or number of files.
>      Note: Documentation size is 204800 bytes in 6 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> 
> 
> Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL?

Will do.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux