https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri/blob/7f4... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/reviews/fedor... Automated Fedora Review URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/reviews/fedor... Description: Golang pkcs11 URI library. Golang pkcs11 URI library. Fedora Account System Username gotmax23 -- 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2047540 |1963603 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1963603 [Bug 1963603] golang-github-containers-ocicrypt-1.1.2 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047540 [Bug 2047540] Review Request: golang-github-containers-ocicrypt - Encryption libraries for Encrypted OCI Container images -- 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 Link Dupont <link(a)sub-pop.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m(a)gmail.com |fedora-review+ |) | --- Comment #1 from Link Dupont <link(a)sub-pop.net&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (This is okay. spec file uses %autorelease) ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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 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]: 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]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel-0-0.1.20220127git78d3cae.fc36.noarch.rpm golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-0-0.1.20220127git78d3cae.fc36.src.rpm golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri/.goipath golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri/archive/78d3cae3a9805d89aa4f... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfbd98537fe1aa6e06edfae6a2062aafcf42ad4f27145d717ae97a1fdc337d12 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfbd98537fe1aa6e06edfae6a2062aafcf42ad4f27145d717ae97a1fdc337d12 Requires -------- golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem Provides -------- golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel: golang(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri) golang(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri)(commit=78d3cae3a9805d89aa4fa... golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel golang-ipath(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri) golang-ipath(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri)(commit=78d3cae3a9805d8... -- 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri -- 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-02-05 01:46:54 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-762cdc18e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-34e61cf185 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-34e61cf185 -- 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c 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 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=2047524

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047524