[Bug 2019289] New: Review Request: golang-github-mdlayher-socket - Low-level network connection type with asynchronous I/O and deadline support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Bug ID: 2019289 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-mdlayher-socket - Low-level network connection type with asynchronous I/O and deadline support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-mdlayher-socket/golan... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-mdlayher-socket/golan...
Description:
Package socket provides a low-level network connection type which integrates with Go's runtime network poller to provide asynchronous I/O and deadline support.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1916484
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916484 [Bug 1916484] golang-github-mdlayher-netlink-1.4.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |robinlee.sysu@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |robinlee.sysu@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com)
--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Please update to the latest version 0.2.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com) |
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-mdlayher-socket/golan... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-mdlayher-socket/golan...
Changelog: - re-run go2rpm - update to 0.2.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cheese/Public/2019289-golang-github-mdlayher- socket/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [x]: 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). [x]: 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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 1
golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long Package socket provides a low-level network connection type which integrates with Go's runtime network poller to provide asynchronous I/O and deadline support. MIT Licensed golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mdlayher/socket/.goipath golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mdlayher/socket/CHANGELOG.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel/CHANGELOG.md golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mdlayher/socket/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel/README.md golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel/LICENSE.md /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mdlayher/socket/LICENSE.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mdlayher/socket/archive/v0.2.3/socket-0.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1c647911b43961dbb6292d7fa4c96ac03e2b2761c59ab11738a3254a3b351ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1c647911b43961dbb6292d7fa4c96ac03e2b2761c59ab11738a3254a3b351ad
Requires -------- golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(golang.org/x/net/bpf) golang(golang.org/x/sync/errgroup) golang(golang.org/x/sys/unix)
Provides -------- golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel: golang(github.com/mdlayher/socket) golang(github.com/mdlayher/socket/internal/sockettest) golang-github-mdlayher-socket-devel golang-ipath(github.com/mdlayher/socket)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2019289 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, R, Java, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo golang-github-mdlayher-socket 2019289 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47963 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo golang-github-mdlayher-socket f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47964 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo golang-github-mdlayher-socket f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47965 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo golang-github-mdlayher-socket f35 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47966
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-mdlayher-socket
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-073193175d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-073193175d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-10-06 15:42:01
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-073193175d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-c44390febf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c44390febf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b885e1466d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b885e1466d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a9bbb44c92 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a9bbb44c92
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-c44390febf has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-c44390febf` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c44390febf
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b885e1466d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-b885e1466d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b885e1466d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a9bbb44c92 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a9bbb44c92` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a9bbb44c92
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b885e1466d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a9bbb44c92 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019289
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-c44390febf has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com