https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773716 --- Comment #5 from Ryan O'Hara <rohara@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Latest run of fedora-review using latest copr build (1114119), with comments: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages - This isn't a prebuilt package, it is a development package. Ignoring this. [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - License is BSD 2-clause. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rohara/copr- build-1114119/review-golang-github-gehirninc-crypt/licensecheck.txt - Don't understand this "unknown of generated". I inspected the license and it clearly appears to be BSD 2-clause. Also, the licensecheck.txt file is not helpful. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - No %build here since this is devel only package. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. - Changelog needs attention. I'd would personally not use UTC time format, but technically it is fine. Definitely change name from "mockbuild" to your actual name and <email>. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - No issues with above. [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]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Not sure about this. The fedora-review tool builds in mock, so I am inclined to say this works as intended. However I was not able to manually build this package in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - No issues above. Latest version is packaged, should be -devel package only (no binaries), and there is no upstream gpg key to use for verify. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel-0-0.1.20191113git6c0105a.fc32.noarch.rpm golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-0-0.1.20191113git6c0105a.fc32.src.rpm golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/.goipath golang-github-gehirninc-crypt.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. - No issues. First, there should not be a %build section for a -devel go package. Second, I believe that .goipath are unavoidable with go packages. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). - I can't seem to avoid this. Is it really a problem? golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/GehirnInc/crypt <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> - This URL is valid for me. What is it trying to do here? golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. - Same as above. I believe these .goipath files are unavoidable. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/archive/6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e/crypt-6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9daac49482d52dc4ab0381124f87cd3ec0104f8f626abd67e3d880cba3258be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9daac49482d52dc4ab0381124f87cd3ec0104f8f626abd67e3d880cba3258be Requires -------- golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel: golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/apr1_crypt) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/apr1_crypt)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/common) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/common)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/internal) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/internal)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/md5_crypt) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/md5_crypt)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/sha256_crypt) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/sha256_crypt)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/sha512_crypt) golang(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt/sha512_crypt)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel golang-ipath(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt) golang-ipath(github.com/GehirnInc/crypt)(commit=6c0105aabd460ae06c87afeb5a47c869f6a7557e) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build 1114119 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, R, Java, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH - Seems good. Few questions remain and just a couple modifications required (eg. changelog). I wonder how much of these quirky complaints are just due to this with a simple go -devel (aka. source) package? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
