[Bug 2063191] New: Rename Review Request: golang-github-jfrog-gofrog - Collection of Go utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Bug ID: 2063191 Summary: Rename Review Request: golang-github-jfrog-gofrog - Collection of Go utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dominik@greysector.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-jfrog-gofrog/golang-gi... SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/golang-github-jfrog-gofrog/golang-gi... Description: A collection of Go utilities. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
This is a rename review. The Go code was previously available as github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog, but upstream redirected the repo to github.com/jfrog/gofrog . Existing package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog) will be retired once this is imported.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2022221
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022221 [Bug 2022221] golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-1.1.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Everything looks good. This package is APPROVED.
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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation golang-github-jfrog-gofrog.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-jfrog-gofrog.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jfrog/gofrog/.goipath compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog ../jfrog/gofrog
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jfrog/gofrog/.goipath compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog ../jfrog/gofrog
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jfrog/gofrog/archive/v1.1.1/gofrog-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 25aed2a5449c5e37fe1178db3de7548e6d07e6371697ddfcf79b312b58798515 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25aed2a5449c5e37fe1178db3de7548e6d07e6371697ddfcf79b312b58798515
Requires -------- golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/pkg/errors)
compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang-ipath(github.com/jfrog/gofrog)
Provides -------- golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel: golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/crypto) golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/fanout) golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/io) golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/lru) golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/parallel) golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/stringutils) golang(github.com/jfrog/gofrog/version) golang-github-jfrog-gofrog-devel golang-ipath(github.com/jfrog/gofrog)
compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel: compat-golang-github-jfrogdev-gofrog-devel golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/crypto) golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/fanout) golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/io) golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/lru) golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/parallel) golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/stringutils) golang(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog/version) golang-symlink(github.com/jfrogdev/gofrog)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2063191 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Java, R, C/C++, Python, Ruby, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-6ab756aa94 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6ab756aa94
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-6ab756aa94 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6ab756aa94` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6ab756aa94
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063191
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-05-07 04:24:48
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-6ab756aa94 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com