https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821809

Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |hiwkby@yahoo.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |hiwkby@yahoo.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review

Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com's needinfo: Bug 1821809: Review Request: golang-github-sourcemap - Source maps consumer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821809

--- Comment #3 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com --- Sorry for my late response because of my early summer vacation. I will check this again this week.

Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821809

Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi hiwkby@yahoo.com --- Hello Fabian, Package approved. Please see my review attached.

This package contains test suites. If they are practical, you should run them because of the the guidelines[1][2].

I found tests run correctly when changing the spec file as followings. ``` $ diff golang-github-sourcemap.spec.orig golang-github-sourcemap.spec 37c37,38 < %gocheck ---

GOPATH=%{gobuilddir}:%{gobuilddir}/_build:/usr/share/gocode:/usr/share/gocode GO111MODULE=off make

```

Thanks you very much, Hirotaka Wakabayashi

--- 1: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites 2: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_testing

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

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

===== 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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/dev/fedora_packaging/1821809-golang-github- sourcemap/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %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 [-]: 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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: 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 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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- [build@3bbc8cb38dbc fedora_packaging]$ rpmlint ./1821809-golang-github-sourcemap/results/golang-github-sourcemap-2.1.3-1.fc35.src.rpm

binary.rpmlint 2>&1

[build@3bbc8cb38dbc fedora_packaging]$ rpmlint ./1821809-golang-github-sourcemap/results/golang-github-sourcemap-devel-2.1.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm

source.rpmlint 2>&1

[build@3bbc8cb38dbc fedora_packaging]$ cat binary.rpmlint (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.0.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1

golang-github-sourcemap.spec: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s [build@3bbc8cb38dbc fedora_packaging]$ cat source.rpmlint (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. (none): W: unable to init enchant, spellchecking disabled. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.0.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1

golang-github-sourcemap-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemap/.goipath golang-github-sourcemap-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemap/README.md /usr/share/doc/golang-github-sourcemap-devel/README.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemap/archive/v2.1.3/sourcemap-2.1.3.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9e5d9e6f1b7facedd58ef8bb2af86ddf906bfc0c3f377934603e900b21490956 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9e5d9e6f1b7facedd58ef8bb2af86ddf906bfc0c3f377934603e900b21490956

Requires -------- golang-github-sourcemap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem

Provides -------- golang-github-sourcemap-devel: golang(github.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemap) golang(github.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemap/internal/base64vlq) golang-github-sourcemap-devel golang-ipath(github.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemap)

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1821809 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Java, R, Python, Perl, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821809

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2023-02-22 20:33:39