https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431743 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1431740 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431740 [Bug 1431740] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-internal - Shared dependencies for other cznic Go libraries -- 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=1431743 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; --- koji scratch build for rawhide, now all dependencies are available: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19588373 -- 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=1431743 Bug 1431743 depends on bug 1431740, which changed state. Bug 1431740 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-cznic-internal - Shared dependencies for other cznic Go libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431740 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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=1431743 --- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Fabio, as I replied in the devel mailing list review swap request, I am taking this one. - Upstream also ships the snappy license text, since it is a fork of it. Is there any reason you did not ship it? I am not sure if that is a must, but the BSD license text does mention that one must ship the copyright information on redistribution (which is the only thing that changes between the two files). Other than that, the package looks good. I will conclude the review as soon as you provide some feedback on the license issue. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-cznic-zappy-devel-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.fc27.noarch.rpm golang-github-cznic-zappy-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.fc27.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- golang-github-cznic-zappy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golang(github.com/cznic/internal/buffer) Provides -------- golang-github-cznic-zappy-devel: golang(github.com/cznic/zappy) golang-github-cznic-zappy-devel Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cznic/zappy/archive/2533cb5b45cc6c07421468ce262899ddc9... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 588bfb429a99c00174277f2c22507fe3b8f0ecb468ab8f906d13f2e9368f5679 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 588bfb429a99c00174277f2c22507fe3b8f0ecb468ab8f906d13f2e9368f5679 -- 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=1431743 Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4) The first is enough. Package approved! If you are still up for reviewing one of my packages, I would like to have [1] reviewed. It is a (very) short python package. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434410 -- 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=1431743 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-cznic-zappy -- 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=1431743 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |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=1431743 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- golang-github-cznic-zappy-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.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-c0cf3a18e9 -- 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=1431743 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-07-09 16:33:25 -- 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=1431743 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- golang-github-cznic-zappy-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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