[Bug 1332267] New: Review Request: golang-github-heketi-tests - Test utility functions for golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332267
Bug ID: 1332267 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-heketi-tests - Test utility functions for golang Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lpabon@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
############################################################### Review Request: golang-github-heketi-tests - Test utility functions for golang ############################################################### Spec URL: https://lpabon.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-heketi-tests/golang-gi...
SRPM URL: https://lpabon.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-heketi-tests/golang-gi...
Description: Test utility functions for golang
Fedora Account System Username: lpabon
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13892285
$ rpmlint golang-github-heketi-tests-1.0-0.1.gitf3775cb.fc23.src.rpm golang-github-heketi-tests-devel-1.0-0.1.gitf3775cb.fc23.noarch.rpm golang-github-heketi-tests-unit-test-devel-1.0-0.1.gitf3775cb.fc23.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
###############################################################
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332267
Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |o.lemasle@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle o.lemasle@gmail.com --- This package seems ok to me.
NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored, so this comment is unofficial.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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. [?]: 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 [?]: 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/heketi(heketi-devel) [?]: %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. [?]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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-heketi-tests-devel-1.0-0.1.gitf3775cb.fc25.noarch.rpm
golang-github-heketi-tests-unit-test-devel-1.0-0.1.gitf3775cb.fc25.x86_64.rpm golang-github-heketi-tests-1.0-0.1.gitf3775cb.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332267
Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |athoscribeiro@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |athoscribeiro@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332267
--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com --- Hello Luis,
I am taking this review.
- Although you seem to be the upstream for this package, I found nothing on the repository showing that the packaged revision is version 1.0 (upstream is not versioned) nor that the next version is 1.0 (if this is a pre-release package).
- Following my first observation, the Release: tag should follow the new guidelines, where the date the snapshot was taken must appear in the tag. See [1] and [2] for reference.
- The conditional blocks in lines 52 and 68 are empty and may be removed
- aarch64 is now part of the Exclusive arches for golang packages. It would be nice to include it or re-generate the spec file with gofed
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla