https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002716 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel(a)olasagasti.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2003392 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2003392 [Bug 2003392] Review Request: golang-github-git - A highly extensible Git implementation in pure Go -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002716 Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller(a)gmx.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Environment| |If this bug requires | |documentation, please | |select an appropriate Doc | |Type value. --- Comment #1 from Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller(a)gmx.de&gt; --- Standard templated go package - review passes 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fuller/fedora-review/2002716-golang-github- git-billy-5/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: ... [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 [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 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. [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/go-git/go-billy/archive/v5.3.1/go-billy-5.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7d715d7cf11f731dc0466bf93903ba7fe6ac70d086bb862fc24e718d9ddc209e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d715d7cf11f731dc0466bf93903ba7fe6ac70d086bb862fc24e718d9ddc209e Requires -------- golang-github-git-billy-5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(golang.org/x/sys/unix) golang(gopkg.in/check.v1) Provides -------- golang-github-git-billy-5-devel: golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/helper/chroot) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/helper/mount) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/helper/polyfill) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/helper/temporal) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/memfs) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/osfs) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/test) golang(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5/util) golang-github-git-billy-5-devel golang-ipath(github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5) -- 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=2002716

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002716 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(mikel@olasagasti. | |info) --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- @mikel(a)olasagasti.info Could you pretty please build it on F35 through F37? -- 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=2002716

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002716 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel(a)olasagasti.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mikel@olasagasti. | |info) | --- Comment #5 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel(a)olasagasti.info&gt; --- I'll commit the package with proposed changes. SCM requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45588 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45589 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45590 -- 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=2002716

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002716 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-459e5918eb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-459e5918eb -- 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=2002716