Bug 2139489

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05003868-golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term/golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05003868-golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term/golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term-0.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Automated Fedora Review URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05003868-golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term/fedora-review/

Issues:
rpmlint gives an error on source package
golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term.src: E: unknown-key 72e06094

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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". 22 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-
     term/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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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).
[x]: 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]: 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:
[ ]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term.spec: W: no-%build-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness;

golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term.src: E: unknown-key 72e06094
golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term.spec: W: no-%build-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness;

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://git.sr.ht/~rockorager/tcell-term/archive/v0.3.0.tar.gz#/tcell-term-0.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 472c8fbab86d4230418a21668c100b18f3d48598dc3964b42f99000b0f8f0aca
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 472c8fbab86d4230418a21668c100b18f3d48598dc3964b42f99000b0f8f0aca


Requires
--------
golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem
    golang(github.com/creack/pty)
    golang(github.com/gdamore/tcell/v2)
    golang(github.com/gdamore/tcell/v2/views)
    golang(github.com/mattn/go-runewidth)



Provides
--------
golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term-devel:
    golang(git.sr.ht/~rockorager/tcell-term)
    golang-ipath(git.sr.ht/~rockorager/tcell-term)
    golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Python, Java, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

> rpmlint gives an error on source package
> golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term.src: E: unknown-key 72e06094

That error is irrelevant. It's because the SRPM is signed with a key that's not trusted in your system's rpm database. You can ignore this or import the key with "sudo rpm --import https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/reviews/pubkey.gpg" if you really want.

I've set the bug status to ASSIGNED. Please also set "fedora-review?".

I have reviewed this package, and it's a pass.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-sr-rockorager-tcell-term

FEDORA-2022-039486d7d3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-039486d7d3

FEDORA-2022-039486d7d3 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-6667416d75 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6667416d75

FEDORA-2022-57f5a7a572 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-57f5a7a572

FEDORA-2022-57f5a7a572 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-57f5a7a572`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-57f5a7a572

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-6667416d75 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6667416d75`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6667416d75

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-a05c2452ed has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a05c2452ed

FEDORA-2022-a05c2452ed has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a05c2452ed`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a05c2452ed

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-57f5a7a572 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-6667416d75 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-a05c2452ed has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.