Bug 1377227

Hello,

I am taking this one.

- As pointed in [1], packages licensed under ASL2.0 must include the license text. Note that the provided LICENSE.md file does not include the ASL2.0 text license, but a link to it.

- Upstream does provide version tags [2].

- If you are packaging a post release snapshot, there are new guidelines for the Release: tag. For instance, the date the snapshot was taken must be present (this should be updated in gofed). See [3] and [4] for reference.

- The conditionals on lines 52 and 69 could be removed, since they are not used at all.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[2] https://github.com/go-stack/stack/tree/v1.5.2
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples

Thank you for your review. I've updated the SPEC and SRPM:

SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-go-stack-stack.spec
SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/golang-github-go-stack-stack-1.5.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

Hello,

Thanks for the modifications. I opened an issue upstream asking if they could include the full ASL2.0 text in the package [1]

Package looks good. Approved

[1] https://github.com/go-stack/stack/issues/7

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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]: %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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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-go-stack-stack-devel-1.5.2-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          golang-github-go-stack-stack-unit-test-devel-1.5.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          golang-github-go-stack-stack-1.5.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
golang-github-go-stack-stack-unit-test-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    golang-github-go-stack-stack-devel

golang-github-go-stack-stack-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
golang-github-go-stack-stack-unit-test-devel:
    golang-github-go-stack-stack-unit-test-devel
    golang-github-go-stack-stack-unit-test-devel(x86-64)

golang-github-go-stack-stack-devel:
    golang(github.com/go-stack/stack)
    golang-github-go-stack-stack-devel



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/go-stack/stack/archive/100eb0c0a9c5b306ca2fb4f165df21d80ada4b82/stack-100eb0c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1c44acbf3ca14f348c79d61dfa85b4ef9d767419ce8f2423765d505c9514883a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c44acbf3ca14f348c79d61dfa85b4ef9d767419ce8f2423765d505c9514883a
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30

Following up on [1], there was a license change upstream (to MIT).

[1] https://github.com/go-stack/stack/issues/7

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-go-stack-stack

This was never built; also, it doesn't follow the naming for the new Go macros.

Ugh, how could I miss this.

However, I don't have any interest in this, and am happy to give this package to someone caring better than I did, or to just retire the package.

Mark is interested in this for Grafana.

Mark,

If you use the new Go macros, it will create a package with the name "golang-github-stack", so I recommend retiring this one and opening a new review with the right name.

(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #9)
> Mark,
> 
> If you use the new Go macros, it will create a package with the name
> "golang-github-stack", so I recommend retiring this one and opening a new
> review with the right name.

thanks Elliot, will do - and close this as a DUP when the new BZ is ready

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1689595 ***

Matthias, feel free to retire this package name.