[Bug 1480960] New: Review Request: golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb - XGB is the X protocol Go language Binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Bug ID: 1480960 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb - XGB is the X protocol Go language Binding Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sensor.wen@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x8... SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x8...
Description: XGB is the X protocol Go language Binding
Fedora Account System Username: mosquito
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
sensor.wen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1465889 | |(DeepinDEPackageReview)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 [Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1476583
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476583 [Bug 1476583] Review Request: startdde - Starter of deepin desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- License is not a valid license name. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List.
It seems the %shortcommit should be used in Release: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Hashed_revisions.
Summary should be without a dot at the end, %description should have a dot.
I think debuginfo should be produced: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Debuginfo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1476589
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476589 [Bug 1476589] Review Request: deepin-api - Go-lang bingding for dde-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl ---
I think debuginfo should be produced
Nevermind, please ignore.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #3 from sensor.wen@gmail.com --- Diff: https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/244de033cf54514c0c240dba1f3caa64d4825221
Thanks, I fixed license and release tag.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
Although xgbutils is under WTFPL license, the xgb package is under a BSD Clause 3 license. Thus you sould fix the license tag again.
Although there is only one testing file, you should have kept the original gofed structure: nothing tells you more tests won't be added in the future, it would be simpler to update.
The tests in %check do not make sense, there should only be one since there's only one _test.go file, the one you commented out: %gotest %{import_path}/xproto which fails because we're in a chroot and do not have access to the display.
Rpmlint error: xproto_test.go has an executable bit, you should install it with "install -m 644"
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github- BurntSushi-xgb/review-golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/BurntSushi(golang-github-BurntSushi- xgb-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-devel, golang-github- BurntSushi-xgbutil-devel) [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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- github-BurntSushi-xgb-devel , golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-unit-test- devel [?]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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-BurntSushi-xgb-devel-0-0.1.git27f1227.fc27.noarch.rpm
golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-unit-test-devel-0-0.1.git27f1227.fc27.x86_64.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-0-0.1.git27f1227.fc27.src.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-unit-test-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-unit-test-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/BurntSushi/xgb/xproto/xproto_test.go 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-unit-test-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-unit-test-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/BurntSushi/xgb/xproto/xproto_test.go 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #5 from sensor.wen@gmail.com --- Diff: https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/56174a271cfa86b1817de4a7e71567c2927b6907
SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/56174a271cfa86b1817de4a7e71567c2...
Thanks~ i fix it again. Other spec may be same problem, i will check again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) zebob.m@gmail.com --- Sorry one last thing, there one directory under WTFPL:
do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2) ------------------------------------------------ xgb-27f122750802c950b2c869a5b63dafcf590ced95/xgbgen/COPYING
You should add it in the license tag with a comment explaining which license covers what:
# Everything under BSD except xgbgen Licence: BSD and WTFPL
Otherwise everything is good. Package accepted.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-0-0.1.git27f1227.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2156ba137c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-0-0.1.git27f1227.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-2156ba137c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sztsian@gmail.com Alias| |golang-github-BurntSushi-xg | |b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-07-22 09:32:37
--- Comment #11 from Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com --- This is already in Rawhide. Closing on behalf of the Deepin Desktop packaging effort.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480960
--- Comment #12 from Zamir SUN sztsian@gmail.com --- This is already in Rawhide. Closing on behalf of the Deepin Desktop packaging effort.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com