I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial.

- Summary:
Start with an upcase

- Patch0:
Please add the URL to the upstream issue

- %files
Why are you forcing defattr, it should be OK by default
LICENSE is not a %doc but a %license

is there a reason that you do not use %gobuild and %gotest ?

Because without this, I have this error :
+ go build cmd/setlock/setlock.go
# command-line-arguments
cmd/setlock/setlock.go:9:20: error: import file './../../go-setlock' not found
  "./../../go-setlock"

(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #1)
> I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial.

Thanks for your review.

> - Summary:
> Start with an upcase

Fixed.

> - Patch0:
> Please add the URL to the upstream issue

It's my patch for creating RPM package.
So its upstream issue is nothing.


> - %files
> Why are you forcing defattr, it should be OK by default
> LICENSE is not a %doc but a %license

Fixed.

(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #2)
> is there a reason that you do not use %gobuild and %gotest ?

Fedora 23 and EPEL 7 don't define its rpm macros.


> Because without this, I have this error :
> + go build cmd/setlock/setlock.go
> # command-line-arguments
> cmd/setlock/setlock.go:9:20: error: import file './../../go-setlock' not
> found
>   "./../../go-setlock"

My build with mock is success. What is your build environment?

Thanks.

I update spec files and SRPM package.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/iwaim/fedora-pkgs/master/review/go-setlock/setlock.spec
SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/iwaim/fedora-pkgs/master/review/go-setlock/setlock-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm

Re %gobuild and %gotest

I stumbled upon it today as well. You can just %define gobuild when it's not already defined:

%if ! 0%{?gobuild:1}
function _gobuild { go build -a -ldflags "-B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \n')" -v -x "$@"; }
%global gobuild _gobuild
%endif

or maybe more elegantly ;).

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.