https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882895 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Added together with scout (the blocked package) to a COPR project: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/scout/build/1686711/ A -devel subpackage is generated, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the SPEC file as outlined here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_go_code_packages_goname_devel Is this correct? I'm not very familiar with packaging Golang programs. In addition, fedora-review warns about subpackage Requires: > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- > github-liamg-tml-devel Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: 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/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/golang-github-liamg-tml/golang-github- liamg-tml/licensecheck.txt [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 [?]: 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 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds 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. [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-liamg-tml-devel Review: See earlier comment. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-liamg-tml-0.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm golang-github-liamg-tml-devel-0.3.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm golang-github-liamg-tml-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm golang-github-liamg-tml.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/bin/tml golang-github-liamg-tml.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tml golang-github-liamg-tml-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/liamg/tml/.goipath 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: golang-github-liamg-tml-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name golang-github-liamg-tml-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name golang-github-liamg-tml (none): E: no installed packages by name golang-github-liamg-tml-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/liamg/tml/archive/v0.3.0/tml-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 083d0252827d13da36a0b9c967d522adf31f8ce770a00c29d84a197d0102216e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 083d0252827d13da36a0b9c967d522adf31f8ce770a00c29d84a197d0102216e Requires -------- golang-github-liamg-tml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-liamg-tml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-liamg-tml: golang-github-liamg-tml golang-github-liamg-tml(x86-64) golang-github-liamg-tml-devel: golang(github.com/liamg/tml) golang(github.com/liamg/tml/version) golang-github-liamg-tml-devel golang-ipath(github.com/liamg/tml) -- 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
