[Bug 1426964] New: Review Request: golang-github-miekg-mmark - Mmark: a powerful markdown processor in Go geared towards the IETF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Bug ID: 1426964 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-miekg-mmark - Mmark: a powerful markdown processor in Go geared towards the IETF Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fred@fredericolima.com.br QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fredlima.fedorapeople.org/packaging/golang-github-miekg-mmark.spec SRPM URL: https://fredlima.fedorapeople.org/packaging/golang-github-miekg-mmark-1.3.4-...
Description: Mmark: a powerful markdown processor in Go geared towards the IETF
Fedora Account System Username: fredlima
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Frederico Lima fred@fredericolima.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|unspecified |medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1426972
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426972 [Bug 1426972] Review Request: hugo - A Fast and Flexible Static Site Generator built with love in GoLang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|medium |unspecified Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |athoscribeiro@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |athoscribeiro@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Severity|medium |unspecified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com --- Hi Fred,
Fedora packaging guidelines suggests using %global instead of %define unless %define is needed over %global (it should be justified) Since it comes from gofed, suggested by the guidelines, there should be a reason for that. But we should query the golang team about that.
Package looks good.
Aprroved!
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
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 COPYRIGHT is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other 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. [-]: 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. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: golang-github-miekg-mmark-1.3.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm golang-github-miekg-mmark-devel-1.3.4-1.fc26.noarch.rpm golang-github-miekg-mmark-unit-test-devel-1.3.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm golang-github-miekg-mmark-debuginfo-1.3.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm golang-github-miekg-mmark-1.3.4-1.fc26.src.rpm golang-github-miekg-mmark.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmark 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: golang-github-miekg-mmark-debuginfo-1.3.4-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory golang-github-miekg-mmark.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmark 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- golang-github-miekg-mmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
golang-github-miekg-mmark-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
golang-github-miekg-mmark-unit-test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang-github-miekg-mmark-devel
golang-github-miekg-mmark-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml)
Provides -------- golang-github-miekg-mmark: golang-github-miekg-mmark golang-github-miekg-mmark(x86-64) mmark
golang-github-miekg-mmark-debuginfo: golang-github-miekg-mmark-debuginfo golang-github-miekg-mmark-debuginfo(x86-64)
golang-github-miekg-mmark-unit-test-devel: golang-github-miekg-mmark-unit-test-devel golang-github-miekg-mmark-unit-test-devel(x86-64)
golang-github-miekg-mmark-devel: golang(github.com/miekg/mmark) golang-github-miekg-mmark-devel
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/miekg/mmark/archive/v1.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e03744da8d16cc742423685e2ad7cb1af61bf6dc5364c6875057b7c28ab26bb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e03744da8d16cc742423685e2ad7cb1af61bf6dc5364c6875057b7c28ab26bb8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
--- Comment #2 from Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com --- For the records: there is a LICENSE file in %license for this package. the COPYRIGHT file contains ONLY copyright holders information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Frederico Lima fred@fredericolima.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-miekg-mmark - |golang-github-miekg-mmark - |Mmark: a powerful markdown |A powerful markdown |processor in Go geared |processor in Go geared |towards the IETF |towards the IETF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-miekg-mmark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-miekg-mmark-1.3.4-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-52e6fc64e0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-miekg-mmark-1.3.4-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-52e6fc64e0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426964
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-06-11 12:15:39
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-miekg-mmark-1.3.4-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com