https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
Bug ID: 2187844 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-lru-2 - Golang LRU cache Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mike@flyn.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0 Build Identifier:
Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/golang-github-hashicorp-lru-2.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/golang-github-hashicorp-lru-2-2.0.2-1.fc38.src.rp...
Description: Golang LRU cache.
Fedora Account System Username: mikep
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1930952
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930952 [Bug 1930952] hugo-0.111.3 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |mikel@olasagasti.info Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mikel@olasagasti.info
--- Comment #1 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info --- Package structure is correct, but I'm not sure about if License is correct.
`simplelru/LICENSE_list` file suggest part of the code is BSD-3, for example simplelru/list.go.
That file is part of `%global golicenses`, but then `License: MPL-2.0` won't match those BSD files.
Can you manually add the other License that was not capture by go2rpm?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2187845
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187845 [Bug 2187845] golang-github-bep-lazycache - Thread safe in-memory LRU cache with non-blocking cache priming on cache misses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
--- Comment #2 from W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/golang-github-hashicorp-lru-2.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/golang-github-hashicorp-lru-2-2.0.2-1.fc38.src.rp...
I added this:
License: MPL-2.0 and BSD-3-Clause
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1958429 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1958429&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5803423 to 5807051
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info --- I am not going to go through the whole fedora-review template, as this package uses go2rpm.
- [x] The specfile is sane. - [x] License is correct - [x] Builds successfully in mock - [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review) - [x] No relevant rpmlint errors - [x] %check section passes - [x] The latest version is packaged - [x] `%goipath` is set correctly - [-] Binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution - [x] The package complies with the Packaging Guidelines.
Package approved! On import, don't forget to do the following:
- [ ] Add package to release-monitoring.org - [ ] Give go-sig privileges on package - [ ] Close the review bug by referencing it in the rpm changelog and the Bodhi ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
--- Comment #5 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info --- I am not going to go through the whole fedora-review template, as this package uses go2rpm.
- [x] The specfile is sane. - [x] License is correct - [x] Builds successfully in mock - [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review) - [x] No relevant rpmlint errors - [x] %check section passes - [x] The latest version is packaged - [x] `%goipath` is set correctly - [-] Binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution - [x] The package complies with the Packaging Guidelines.
Package approved! On import, don't forget to do the following:
- [ ] Add package to release-monitoring.org - [ ] Give go-sig privileges on package - [ ] Close the review bug by referencing it in the rpm changelog and the Bodhi ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
--- Comment #6 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-hashicorp-lru-2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
--- Comment #7 from W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/52875
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-55344d729c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-55344d729c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187844
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-04-20 19:58:06
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-55344d729c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org