https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Bug ID: 2091177 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3 - Console progress bar for Golang Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhayden@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/hcloud/fedora-raw... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/hcloud/fedora-raw... Description: Console progress bar for Golang Fedora Account System Username: mhayden
I'm working to package Hetzner Cloud's golang bindings (hcloud), and this is one of the dependencies. There is already a package for golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-1, but v3 is the only version that exists in GitHub and hcloud depends on the v3 version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikel@olasagasti.info Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mikel@olasagasti.info Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga mikel@olasagasti.info --- Approved!
Just two minor things:
- README_V1.md applies to previous package, I see it as optional - LICENSE and v3/LICENSE are the same file and creates a warning
On import, don't forget to do the following:
- Add package to release-monitoring.org - Add package to Koschei - Give go-sig privileges on package - Close the review bug by referencing it in the rpm changelog and/or the Bodhi ticket. (rhbz#BUG_ID)
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/golang-github- cheggaaa-pb-devel/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
===== 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 3-Clause License". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/major/2091177-golang-github-cheggaaa- pb-3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 2 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang- github-cheggaaa-pb-devel , compat-golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3-devel [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]: %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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cheggaaa/pb/archive/v3.0.8/pb-3.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17cb166dfe931ccdf3742271442dcfb2b886099d3e32fb706e2c4752133b2910 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17cb166dfe931ccdf3742271442dcfb2b886099d3e32fb706e2c4752133b2910
Requires -------- golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(github.com/VividCortex/ewma) golang(github.com/fatih/color) golang(github.com/mattn/go-colorable) golang(github.com/mattn/go-isatty) golang(github.com/mattn/go-runewidth) golang(golang.org/x/sys/unix)
compat-golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang-ipath(github.com/cheggaaa/pb)
Provides -------- golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel: golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb) golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3) golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3/termutil) golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel golang-ipath(github.com/cheggaaa/pb)
compat-golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3-devel: compat-golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3-devel golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3/pb) golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3/pb/v3) golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3/pb/v3/termutil) golang-symlink(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3/pb)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2091177 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Python, Java, R, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/fedora-scm-requests/ | |issue/44713
--- Comment #2 from Major Hayden 🤠 mhayden@redhat.com --- Thank you, Mikel! 🎉 I'll make those changes on import.
Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/44713
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a24b05cb5e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a24b05cb5e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a24b05cb5e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bec9d70670 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bec9d70670
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eb31b2f25f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eb31b2f25f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bec9d70670 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-bec9d70670 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bec9d70670
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eb31b2f25f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eb31b2f25f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eb31b2f25f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-06-09 01:05:16
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bec9d70670 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091177
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eb31b2f25f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org