https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2015526 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- > > > %{_bindir}/* > > > > Would %{_bindir}/%{name} be preferable here? It looks like this package > > will try to own all files under %{_bindir}. > > It will own only the ones that are created within this package at build > time. I mainly do this to keep my spec files somewhat similar between > packages. I'd agree with Robby here. This is one of those case where a glob can easily mask errors: - as a reviewer, I don't know what binaries this package provides - during upgrades, if upstreams adds more binaries or renames the existing one, it is easy to miss Essentially, the names in /bin are the most important "api" of the package, and it's better to make this part explicit in the .spec file. > > > %changelog > > > %autochangelog > > > > This expands to > > * Tue Oct 19 2021 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.5.2-1.fc36 > > - local build > > > > The dist tag should not be in the changelog entry. The name/email does not > > match. > > Right. This depends on the package coming from a source git repo so that > rpmautospec can generate the changelog based on the git history. Once it's > in a source-git repo, this will be populated with the right data. Or in other words, our review tools haven't been updated yet to deal with rpmautospec. %changelog entries in fact *should* have dist tags, so the autogenerated changelog entry is correct. Unfortunately, this is a never-ending story: review tools and automatic checkers quite often trail behind the state-of-the-art packaging, and as a reviewer you need to learn and le-learn which parts of the output generated by review tools is obsolete. rpmlint: > asciigraph.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/asciigraph That's how go works, unfrotunately. > golang-github-guptarohit-asciigraph-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/guptarohit/asciigraph/.goipath That's how go works, again. > asciigraph.src:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog And that's rpmautospec, all fine. - package name is OK - latest version - license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD) - license is specified correctly - standard go template is used - builds and installs OK - BR/R/P look OK Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2015526 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
