https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065157 Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mark.e.fuller@xxxxxx CC| |mark.e.fuller@xxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller@xxxxxx> --- Looks great - no issues identified - approved Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license_agpl.go is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0 GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License Apache License 2.0". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fuller/fedora-review/2065157-golang-github- spf13-cobra-cli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: {truncated} - standard for go packages [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files. [x]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- github-spf13-cobra-cli-devel [ ]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/spf13/cobra-cli/archive/v1.3.0/cobra-cli-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c9729828a035eff012330d5e720eec28d2cb6a1dbaa048e485285977da77d15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c9729828a035eff012330d5e720eec28d2cb6a1dbaa048e485285977da77d15 Requires -------- golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/spf13/cobra) golang(github.com/spf13/viper) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli: golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli(x86-64) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-devel: golang(github.com/spf13/cobra-cli/cmd) golang(github.com/spf13/cobra-cli/tpl) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-devel golang-ipath(github.com/spf13/cobra-cli) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debuginfo golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debuginfo(x86-64) golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debugsource: golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debugsource golang-github-spf13-cobra-cli-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2065157 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Java 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=2065157 _______________________________________________ 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
