[Bug 1885969] New: Review Request: golang-github-gookit-color - Terminal color rendering tool library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
Bug ID: 1885969 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-gookit-color - Terminal color rendering tool library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mail@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-gookit-color.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-gookit-color-1.3.1...
Project URL: https://github.com/gookit/color
Description: A Terminal color rendering tool library, support 8/16 colors, 256 colors and RGB color rendering output.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52931098
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-gookit-color-1.3.1-1.fc32.src.rpm golang-github-gookit-color.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint golang-github-gookit-color-devel-1.3.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm golang-github-gookit-color-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/gookit/color/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andymenderunix@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andymenderunix@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Looks good to me. Package approved. Full review below:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2324480 bytes in 39 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/golang-github-gookit-color/golang-github- gookit-color/licensecheck.txt [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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-gookit-color-devel-1.3.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm golang-github-gookit-color-1.3.1-1.fc32.src.rpm golang-github-gookit-color-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/gookit/color/.goipath golang-github-gookit-color.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name golang-github-gookit-color-devel 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gookit/color/archive/v1.3.1/color-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8ab79c34d96565d4f9f4b77d5cbbdd00a24599a9eada61f573fa8d2bdcc0ee4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8ab79c34d96565d4f9f4b77d5cbbdd00a24599a9eada61f573fa8d2bdcc0ee4
Requires -------- golang-github-gookit-color-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem
Provides -------- golang-github-gookit-color-devel: golang(github.com/gookit/color) golang-github-gookit-color-devel golang-ipath(github.com/gookit/color)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-gookit-color
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-7eb504f45c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7eb504f45c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885969
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-7eb504f45c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7eb504f45c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7eb504f45c
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=1885969
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-11-04 03:01:16
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-7eb504f45c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com