https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803223 --- Comment #13 from Alejandro Sáez Morollón <asm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the comments. I updated the name and the license. I'm still not 100% convinced about the name. I think I prefer the starlark one but the upstream project is starlark-go, the command is starlark, and I know that there are more implementations out there in other languages so not sure which name is the best here. I would love to hear your suggestions. Or about other packages in the same situation. Regarding the license, I wrote ASL 2.0 instead of Apache License 2.0 after looking at this page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses. (In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #12) > Generally looks good to me. I see two issues. First the name of the > package/spec. I think it can be even just starlark, but golang-starlak(or > the full "import" path) will work too. Please adjust the name of the package > in the review request title and change the name of the spec to the name that > you will choose. > Second is that there are two files of testdata under the apache 2.0 license. > Could you please adjust the license tag and add license breakdown in to the > comment above it? > Otherwise look good to me. Thank you for packaging :). > Fedora review output follows. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > Note: golang-github-google-starlark.spec should be golang-starlark.spec > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_spec_file_naming > - contains testdata under apache2.0 license not listed under the license tag > * starlark/testdata/paths.star > * syntax/testdata/scan.star > > ===== 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. > [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. > [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. > [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]: 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. > [!]: 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]: 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]: 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- > starlark-devel > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > [-]: 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. > [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: > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [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. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: golang-starlark-0-0.1.20200330git32f3451.fc33.x86_64.rpm > golang-starlark-devel-0-0.1.20200330git32f3451.fc33.noarch.rpm > golang-starlark-0-0.1.20200330git32f3451.fc33.src.rpm > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untyped -> > typed > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog > 0-0.1.20190702git32f3451 ['0-0.1.20200330git32f3451.fc33', > '0-0.1.20200330git32f3451'] > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary starlark > golang-starlark-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > untyped -> typed > golang-starlark-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gocode/src/go.starlark.net/.goipath > golang-starlark.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untyped -> typed > golang-starlark.src: E: invalid-spec-name > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: golang-starlark-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200330git32f3451.fc33.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using > bdb backend. > warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using > bdb backend. > golang-starlark-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > untyped -> typed > golang-starlark-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: > https://github.com/google/starlark-go <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or > service not known> > golang-starlark-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gocode/src/go.starlark.net/.goipath > warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using > bdb backend. > golang-starlark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://github.com/google/starlark-go <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or > service not known> > warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using > bdb backend. > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untyped -> > typed > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog > 0-0.1.20190702git32f3451 ['0-0.1.20200330git32f3451.fc33', > '0-0.1.20200330git32f3451'] > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://github.com/google/starlark-go <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or > service not known> > golang-starlark.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary starlark > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/google/starlark-go/archive/ > 32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b/starlark-go- > 32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 2c77e29ad093a5d10e54206827ad69c44c073d6a926183633633fff15e8c1aa4 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 2c77e29ad093a5d10e54206827ad69c44c073d6a926183633633fff15e8c1aa4 > > > Requires > -------- > golang-starlark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libpthread.so.0()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > golang-starlark-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > go-filesystem > golang(github.com/chzyer/readline) > > > > Provides > -------- > golang-starlark: > golang-starlark > golang-starlark(x86-64) > > golang-starlark-devel: > golang(go.starlark.net/internal/chunkedfile) > > golang(go.starlark.net/internal/ > chunkedfile)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/internal/compile) > > golang(go.starlark.net/internal/ > compile)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/internal/spell) > > golang(go.starlark.net/internal/ > spell)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/repl) > > golang(go.starlark.net/repl)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/resolve) > > golang(go.starlark.net/ > resolve)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/starlark) > > golang(go.starlark.net/ > starlark)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/starlarkstruct) > > golang(go.starlark.net/ > starlarkstruct)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/starlarktest) > > golang(go.starlark.net/ > starlarktest)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang(go.starlark.net/syntax) > > golang(go.starlark.net/ > syntax)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang-ipath(go.starlark.net) > > golang-ipath(go.starlark. > net)(commit=32f34518621301fe6ca1937b9685d58284d1237b) > golang-starlark-devel -- 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
