Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1204614
Summary: | Review Request: gofed - Tool for development of golang devel packages | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ondrej Oprala <ooprala> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | ooprala, ovasik, package-review, ville.skytta |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ooprala:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-01-26 03:21:13 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Jan Chaloupka
2015-03-23 07:32:41 UTC
Upstream: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/gofed Notes: ignore "gofed.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/gofed/parseGo" as this package is still in an experimental state. ===== fedora-review output with my comments, denoted by '>>>' ===== This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. >>> OK - LICENSE file present in the project with a GPL License description [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ooprala/.vim/gofed/licensecheck.txt >>> OK - Checks out [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. >>> OK - go compiler [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. >>> OK [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. >>> FAILED - version doesn't match %global commit [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. >>> OK [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf >>> FAILED [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. >>> OK [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package >>> OK [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. >>> OK [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names) >>> OK [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. >>> OK [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. >>> FAILED - %postun and %preun [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. >>> OK [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. >>> OK [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. >>> OK [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. >>> OK [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. >>> OK - none needed [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. >>> OK - No debuginfo for golang stuff [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. >>> OK - ExclusiveArch [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. >>> OK - not applicable [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines >>> OK [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 %doc. [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]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: >>> OK - packager == upstream [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 21872640 bytes in /usr/share gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc21.x86_64.rpm:21872640 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines >>> OK - This should be ok [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc21.x86_64.rpm gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc21.src.rpm gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) golang -> Angolan, Golan, Angola gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automize -> atomize, automatize gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US golang -> Angolan, Golan, Angola gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.git3b5f081 ['0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc21', '0-0.1.gitcab0f0b'] gofed.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf gofed.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf gofed.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/gofed gofed.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln gofed.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm gofed.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automize -> atomize, automatize gofed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 4) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- gofed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh bash bash-completion config(gofed) coreutils fedpkg graphviz koji openssh-clients python python-PyGithub rpm-build rpmdevtools rpmlint tar wget Provides -------- gofed: config(gofed) gofed gofed(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ingvagabund/gofed/archive/cab0f0b7fc74c7f7eb38b597c30347a87c83c832/gofed-cab0f0b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c82051d150882895a2733a730a7712e6635c4ffe027e1187187c5a3c343a2fa5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c82051d150882895a2733a730a7712e6635c4ffe027e1187187c5a3c343a2fa5 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ====== In summary, please fix the %postun and %preun files, as they shouldn't create symlinks/rm without checking add noreplace to %config and sync the %changelog version with commit. I'll rerun the review with the new build. Thanks! Thanks Ondrej, I have uploaded updated srpm and spec file: Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gofed/gofed.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gofed/gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9336752 $ rpmlint gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.src.rpm gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.x86_64.rpm gofed-debuginfo-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.x86_64.rpm gofed.spec gofed.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automize -> atomize, automatize gofed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 4) gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) golang -> Angolan, Golan, Angola gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automize -> atomize, automatize gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US golang -> Angolan, Golan, Angola gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel gofed.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf gofed.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/gofed gofed-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources gofed.spec:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 4) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings. I have completely removed %postun and %preun sections and fixed commit in changelog and added config(noreplace). [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. >>> OK [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf >>> OK [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. >>> OK gofed.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/share/gofed/parseGo also fixed :) fedora-review also ran the Python plugin this time: Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. >>> OK [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. >>> OK [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python >>> OK [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Thanks, I don't see any further issue. APPROVED New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gofed Short Description: Tool for development of golang devel packages Upstream URL: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/gofed Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 f20 el6 InitialCC: golang-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20 gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc21 gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc22 gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.el6 gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. gofed-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc22 gofed-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc21 gofed-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc20 (In reply to Ondrej Oprala from comment #2) > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > >>> OK - No debuginfo for golang stuff If this is true for an arch specific package, the empty -debuginfo package needs to be explicitly disabled. Hi Ville, debug info is no longer empty. The first fedora-review was run on a spec file with no debug info stripping. The second run was on spec file updated for building binaries with support for debugging symbols. Thus debuginfo package is no longer empty. $ rpm -qpl gofed-debuginfo-0.0.1-0.1.git62b0051.fc23.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib/debug /usr/lib/debug/.build-id /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7c /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7c/11b13a5b64746ad7fdf1dc5fbe8f238381f344 /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7c/11b13a5b64746ad7fdf1dc5fbe8f238381f344.debug /usr/lib/debug/usr /usr/lib/debug/usr/share /usr/lib/debug/usr/share/gofed /usr/lib/debug/usr/share/gofed/parseGo.debug gofed-0.0.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.3-1.fc22 gofed-0.0.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.3-1.fc21 gofed-0.0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.3-1.fc20 gofed-0.0.5-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.5-1.fc22 gofed-0.0.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.5-1.fc21 gofed-0.0.6-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.6-1.fc22 gofed-0.0.6-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gofed-0.0.6-1.fc21 gofed-0.0.8-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gofed'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13949 gofed-0.0.8-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gofed'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13948 gofed-0.0.10-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ae3431a7c2 gofed-0.0.10-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gofed' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ae3431a7c2 gofed-0.0.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gofed' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bd2922d501 gofed-0.0.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gofed' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bd2922d501 gofed-0.0.10-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gofed-0.0.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |