[Bug 2175886] New: Review Request: golang-github-buger-goterm - Advanced terminal output in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175886
Bug ID: 2175886 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-buger-goterm - Advanced terminal output in Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhayden@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/autorestic/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/autorestic/fedora... Description: Advanced terminal output in Go Fedora Account System Username: mhayden
This one is required for autorestic and I'll put that review up in a moment with a link to this ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175886
Link Dupont link@sub-pop.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |link@sub-pop.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |link@sub-pop.net Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175886
Link Dupont link@sub-pop.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Link Dupont link@sub-pop.net --- 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/link/2175886-golang-github-buger- goterm/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %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 20480 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]: 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 ------- Checking: golang-github-buger-goterm-devel-1.0.4-1.fc39.noarch.rpm golang-github-buger-goterm-1.0.4-1.fc39.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp29gaf7oo')] checks: 31, packages: 2
golang-github-buger-goterm.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-buger-goterm-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/buger/goterm/.goipath golang-github-buger-goterm-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/buger/goterm/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-buger-goterm-devel/README.md ==================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
golang-github-buger-goterm-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/buger/goterm/.goipath golang-github-buger-goterm-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/buger/goterm/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-buger-goterm-devel/README.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/buger/goterm/archive/v1.0.4/goterm-1.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9fd8bc9480373eb01706f81f9402887d22a3afd269a7a77e1d85fbe8d6f600af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9fd8bc9480373eb01706f81f9402887d22a3afd269a7a77e1d85fbe8d6f600af
Requires -------- golang-github-buger-goterm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(golang.org/x/sys/unix)
Provides -------- golang-github-buger-goterm-devel: golang(github.com/buger/goterm) golang-github-buger-goterm-devel golang-ipath(github.com/buger/goterm)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2175886 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Python, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts, C/C++, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175886
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-buger-goterm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175886
--- Comment #3 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Thank you, Link!
Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51833
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175886
Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-03-08 18:08:36
--- Comment #4 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Done! https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-33fa27a583
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com