https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293883
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mikel@olasagasti.info Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |mikel@olasagasti.info Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info --- In https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/4-go-packages-to-review/123119 you mention this package needs to be boostrapped, but it built just fine for me.
This package was generated using go2rpm, which simplifies the review.
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
- [x] The latest version is packaged or packaging an earlier version is justified. - [x] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct identifiers. - [x] The package builds successfully in mock. - [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review). - [x] There are no relevant rpmlint errors. - [x] The package runs tests in %check. - [x] `%goipath` is set correctly. - [-] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution. (Some Go projects include utility binaries with very generic names) - [-] There are no `%{_bindir}/*` wildcards in %files. (go2rpm includes these by default) - [x] The package does not use `%gometa -f` if it has dependents that still build for %ix86. - [x] The package complies with the Golang and general Packaging Guidelines.
Package approved! On import, don't forget to do the following:
- [ ] Add the package to release-monitoring.org - [ ] Give go-sig privileges (at least commit) on the package - [ ] Close the review bug by referencing its ID in the rpm changelog and the Bodhi ticket. - [ ] Consider configuring Packit service to help with maintenance
Thanks!