[Bug 2249868] New: Review Request: golang-github-tidwall-match - Simple string pattern matcher for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Bug ID: 2249868 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-tidwall-match - Simple string pattern matcher for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: V02460@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://v02460.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-tidwall-match.spec SRPM URL: https://v02460.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-tidwall-match-1.1.1-1.fc40.src... Description: Simple string pattern matcher for Go Fedora Account System Username: v02460
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6639508 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Kai A. Hiller V02460@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2249873
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249873 [Bug 2249873] Review Request: golang-github-tidwall-gjson - Get JSON values quickly - JSON parser for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikel@olasagasti.info Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
--- Comment #2 from Kai A. Hiller V02460@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2000824 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2000824&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6639508 to 6677155
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6677155 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review. If you are up for a swap, I could use a review for bug 2257770.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. [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. [-]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 557 bytes in 1 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). [?]: 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]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-tidwall-match-devel-1.1.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm golang-github-tidwall-match-1.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvs3x6rdm')] checks: 31, packages: 2
golang-github-tidwall-match.src: W: strange-permission golang-github-tidwall-match.spec 600 golang-github-tidwall-match.spec: W: no-%build-section golang-github-tidwall-match-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tidwall/match/.goipath ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
golang-github-tidwall-match-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('matcher', 'Summary(en_US) matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher') golang-github-tidwall-match-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('matcher', '%description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher') golang-github-tidwall-match-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tidwall/match/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tidwall/match/archive/v1.1.1/match-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1fc2ff17ecdd82c7ba739b4f373b9df731a8e42517c70285c8bbf24dd9b3f2f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1fc2ff17ecdd82c7ba739b4f373b9df731a8e42517c70285c8bbf24dd9b3f2f0
Requires -------- golang-github-tidwall-match-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem
Provides -------- golang-github-tidwall-match-devel: golang(github.com/tidwall/match) golang-github-tidwall-match-devel golang-ipath(github.com/tidwall/match)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/2249868-golang-github-tidwall-match/srpm/golang-github-tidwall-match.spec 2024-01-10 13:29:17.613965171 -0700 +++ /home/jamesjer/2249868-golang-github-tidwall-match/srpm-unpacked/golang-github-tidwall-match.spec 2023-11-17 17:00:00.000000000 -0700 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by go2rpm 1.10.0 %bcond_without check @@ -46,3 +56,4 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Sat Nov 18 2023 John Doe packager@example.com - 1.1.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2249868 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, fonts, Ruby, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, R, Python, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
--- Comment #7 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-tidwall-match
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-2c05735bc9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2c05735bc9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249868
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-17 02:21:28
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-2c05735bc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com