https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Randy Barlow <randy(a)electronsweatshop.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |admiller(a)redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(admiller(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow <randy(a)electronsweatshop.com&gt; --- Some thoughts after a first pass: * It's pretty weird for an RPM to put static css/html/js into /var, and I think it might be a violation of FHS since this is not state data, though I'm not sure. These files should go into /usr/share I believe. It sounds like this app might also write to this same folder, which makes things a little weird. Can the app handle its static files being in /usr/share while it's variable data is in /var/lib? * Also, I think it might be more typical to use /var/lib/ instead of /var. * Wherever the static content goes, the spec file also needs to own the directory. Right now, /var/reg-server is unowned. * Is it possible to avoid the bundled dependencies? If so, we should "make every effort". If not, I think we need to publicly contact upstream about a path to supporting system libraries as documented at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplicat... Also, I found the Go packaging draft guidelines to read confusingly about this, but it sounds like they prefer packages not to bundle: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Dependencies * If we do need to keep the bundled deps, I think we might need the license field to list the licenses of them all. Based on fedora-review's license check, I suggest: License: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT Optional/Suggestions/Questions: * You can set Source0 to a GitHub URL despite there not being a release. For example: https://github.com/jessfraz/reg/archive/94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888... * Is it a typo in the unit file that there's a =- instead of just = after EnvironmentFile? * The --debug env var is uncommented, but it sounds like it's meant to be commented. * You should use %global instead of %define on the docroot variable. * You can remove the . from the Summary to get rid of a lint warning. * Mixed usage of spaces and tabs can kill another lint warning. <rant> * Go is a huge mess. You can't see any go code without constant "if error… if error… if error…" everywhere. And the bundling and practice of not making releases and just using git commits of your dependencies creates a huge nope of a language. It's almost as bad as JavaScript! </rant> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #3 from Adam Miller <admiller(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Updated items listed above that I said I would, I'm still not 100% sure what to do about the bundling just yet as well as the license checks. Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg.spec SRPM URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg-0.2.0-2.git.0.94d0af5.fc25.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Randy Barlow <randy(a)electronsweatshop.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|randy(a)electronsweatshop.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #6 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- review as per fedora-review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 204800 bytes in 6 files. [ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in reg- server [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: reg-0.2.0-2.git.0.94d0af5.fc26.x86_64.rpm reg-server-0.2.0-2.git.0.94d0af5.fc26.x86_64.rpm reg-0.2.0-2.git.0.94d0af5.fc26.src.rpm reg.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/reg reg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reg reg-server.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/reg-server reg-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/reg-server 640 reg-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reg-server reg-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun reg.src:143: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export GOPATH="$(pwd)/go:%{buildroot}%{gopath}:%{gopath}" reg.src: W: file-size-mismatch reg-0.2.0.tar.gz = 405316, https://github.com/jessfraz//reg/archive/94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe4872900288... = 405228 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory reg-server.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/reg-server reg-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/reg-server 640 reg-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reg-server reg-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun reg.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/reg reg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reg 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- reg-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(reg-server) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) systemd reg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) Provides -------- reg-server: config(reg-server) reg-server reg-server(x86-64) reg: bundled(golang(github.com/BurntSushi/toml)) bundled(golang(github.com/Sirupsen/logrus)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/distribution)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/api/types)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/cli/config)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/opts)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/homedir)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/httputils)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/idtools)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/ioutils)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/jsonlog)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/jsonmessage)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/longpath)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/progress)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/random)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/streamformatter)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/stringid)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/system)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/tarsum)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/term)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/registry)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/Azure/go-ansite... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/Microsoft/go-wi... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/Nvveen/Gotty)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/Sirupsen/logrus)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/distribu... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/docker-c... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/docker-c... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/go-conne... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/go-conne... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/go-conne... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/go-units)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/docker/libtrust)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/gorilla/context)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/gorilla/mux)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/opencontainers/... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/opencontainers/... bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/pkg/errors)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/github.com/spf13/pflag)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/golang.org/x/net/context)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/golang.org/x/net/proxy)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/unix)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/windows)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/docker/vendor/golang.org/x/time/rate)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/go-connections/nat)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/go-units)) bundled(golang(github.com/docker/libtrust)) bundled(golang(github.com/dustin/go-humanize)) bundled(golang(github.com/gorilla/context)) bundled(golang(github.com/gorilla/mux)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/go-digest)) bundled(golang(github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/user)) bundled(golang(github.com/peterhellberg/link)) bundled(golang(github.com/urfave/cli)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/net/context)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/sys/unix)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/airbrake/gobrake.v2)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/gemnasium/logrus-airbrake-hook.v2)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/urfave/cli.v1)) bundled(golang(gopkg.in/yaml.v2)) reg reg(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jessfraz//reg/archive/94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe4872900288... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 742a270d46c01768f8641bf1e4fae60c611ed570c47e0235523de9725b0aa457 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f30773eb5efe9ee32335653df6d069058724d63e0a116b2052f598a266b49759 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1432214 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jchaloup(a)redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Could you provide the following header in the spec (some of it is already there)? %global provider_prefix github.com/jessfraz/reg %global import_path %{provider_prefix} %global commit 94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888f370456 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) I have a tooling the parses spec and extracts the macros from go packages. It helps to check which go projects are packaged in Fedora. The import path needs to be in the full form, including the 'req'. Why do you think the debuginfo is not supported? You can use: go build -ldflags "-B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \\n')". Any plans to build it on epel6/7? Both devel and unit-test-devel subpackages are optional. However, if the devel package is present, it can be scanned and analysed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #10 from Adam Miller <admiller(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #8) Fixed. Yes. devel and unit-test-devel subpackages of what? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #12 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Adam Miller from comment #11) You're right as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#.5BInstall.5D and lol at myself for having gotten that mixed up. So, [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target <- that LGTM Also, jchaloup mentioned devel and unit-test-devel, that's if you include the original source code of the reg package in the -devel package. Take a look at the 'docker-devel' and 'docker-unit-test-devel' package for example. (I'm personally not a fan of golang -devel packages, and I think we're now left with 150+ of those packages which will sadly be left unmaintained). So, feel free to not create those since those are optional anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- rpmbuild fails with debuginfo enabled, so debuginfo has been disabled for now. See: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jLBnKTZ5Z4s9zFujCHtu5g/ Waiving the debuginfo requirement, which can be fixed at a later date. Specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft and the MUST items have been accounted for. Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- reg-0.4.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ebf1727379 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- reg-0.4.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f1099cbe6a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- reg-0.4.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ebf1727379 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- reg-0.4.1-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5784d9e356 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- reg-0.4.1-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-263decc3c1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- reg-0.4.1-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component