https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035289 Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@xxxxxxxx> --- APPROVED I will also sponsor Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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. [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", "MIT License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/fedora/golang-github-mitchellh- ps/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note these are fine. It is a go-ism Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-tomasen-realip-devel, golang-github-doug-martin-goqu-8-devel, golang-github-linode-linodego- devel, golang-github-m-mizutani-urlscan-devel, golang-github- haproxytech-client-native-devel, compat-golang-github-commonmark- [cut many more :) ] [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]: 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 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines It does comply. While the package guidelines say to use Name: %{goname}-devel, this seems old advise, as the macros already do this, and adding it causes an actual failure. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 golang-github-mitchellh-ps.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mitchellh/go-ps/.goipath golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mitchellh/go-ps/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel/README.md golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel/LICENSE.md /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mitchellh/go-ps/LICENSE.md ==================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==================================== This is fine. [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 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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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]: %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 ===== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mitchellh/go-ps/archive/v1.0.0/go-ps-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c3ad0af6733915a83b54300427e6bca2a124bf16a5732c3f630b3ef53e4eef43 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c3ad0af6733915a83b54300427e6bca2a124bf16a5732c3f630b3ef53e4eef43 Requires -------- -------- golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel: golang(github.com/mitchellh/go-ps) golang(github.com/mitchellh/go-ps)(tag=v1.0.0) golang-github-mitchellh-ps-devel golang-ipath(github.com/mitchellh/go-ps) golang-ipath(github.com/mitchellh/go-ps)(tag=v1.0.0) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-12-28 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2035289 -r Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Python, R, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2035289 _______________________________________________ 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
