https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209772
Maverick Kaung mavjs01@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Maverick Kaung mavjs01@gmail.com --- Golang Package Review ============== Note: Most of the heavy lifting is done by go2rpm
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
- [x] The SPEC file looks sane. - [x] Latest version is packaged. - [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license, and it uses correct identifiers. - [x] The package builds successfully in mock. (done via fedora-review) - [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. (done via fedora-review) - [x] Package installs properly. (done via fedora-review) - [x] Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. (done via fedora-review) - [x] The package runs tests in %check. (done via fedora-review) - [x] `%goipath` is set correctly. - [-] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution. (Some Go projects include utility binaries with very generic names) - [-] There are no `%{_bindir}/*` wildcards in %files. (go2rpm includes these by default, this is however a library) - [x] The package complies with the Golang and general Packaging Guidelines. - [x] hugo is built for golang exclusive arch, therefore `%gometa -f` is justified here as well.
Package approved!
Looking at the packages you maintain, I believe you already know the drill, however, just a small reminder to do the following on import:
- [ ] Add the package to release-monitoring.org - [ ] Give go-sig privileges (at least commit) on the package
Thank you for your continued contributions!