https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853055 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1853053 (golang-uber-fx) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853053 [Bug 1853053] Review Request: golang-uber-fx - A dependency injection based application framework for Go -- 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=1853055 Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- Package APPROVED. 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1853055-golang-uber- dig/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/go.uber.org(golang-uber-atomic-devel, golang- uber-zap-devel, golang-uber-multierr-devel, golang-uber-ratelimit- devel) [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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 20480 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]: 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: [x]: 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]: 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. [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 ------- Checking: golang-uber-dig-devel-1.10.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm golang-uber-dig-1.10.0-1.fc33.src.rpm golang-uber-dig-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/go.uber.org/dig/.goipath golang-uber-dig.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. golang-uber-dig-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/uber-go/dig <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> golang-uber-dig-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/go.uber.org/dig/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/uber-go/dig/archive/v1.10.0/dig-1.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4680d70e749fbb725538b9305446716f628c6a387bdff20dc7cd13c5e64fb54f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4680d70e749fbb725538b9305446716f628c6a387bdff20dc7cd13c5e64fb54f Requires -------- golang-uber-dig-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-uber-dig-devel: golang(go.uber.org/dig) golang(go.uber.org/dig/internal/digreflect) golang(go.uber.org/dig/internal/digreflect/tests/myrepository.git) golang(go.uber.org/dig/internal/digreflect/tests/myrepository.git/mypackage) golang(go.uber.org/dig/internal/dot) golang-ipath(go.uber.org/dig) golang-uber-dig-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1853055 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, Python, fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=1853055 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-068ba41e4d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-068ba41e4d -- 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=1853055 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-9696d4b8db has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9696d4b8db \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9696d4b8db See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=1853055 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-068ba41e4d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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