https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074412 Julien Rische <jrische(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2074467 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074467 [Bug 2074467] Review Request: yq - Portable command-line YAML, JSON and XML processor -- 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=2074412

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074412 Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller(a)gmx.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mark.e.fuller(a)gmx.de CC| |mark.e.fuller(a)gmx.de --- Comment #2 from Mark E. Fuller <mark.e.fuller(a)gmx.de&gt; --- Standard autogenerated go spec/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", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fuller/fedora-review/2074412-golang-github- elliotchance-orderedmap/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. ... [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. [-]: %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 ------- Clean Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elliotchance/orderedmap/archive/v2.0.1/orderedmap-2.0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f36ec28d800108dbee05ed8731ca614734c90e7d3e215b8d5f13e2b3451fc1a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f36ec28d800108dbee05ed8731ca614734c90e7d3e215b8d5f13e2b3451fc1a5 Requires -------- golang-github-elliotchance-orderedmap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-filesystem golang(golang.org/x/exp/constraints) Provides -------- golang-github-elliotchance-orderedmap-devel: golang(github.com/elliotchance/orderedmap) golang(github.com/elliotchance/orderedmap/v2) golang-github-elliotchance-orderedmap-devel golang-ipath(github.com/elliotchance/orderedmap) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2074412 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, fonts, R, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2074412

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074412 --- Comment #4 from Julien Rische <jrische(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I'm struggling to build this package for aarch64 and s390x[1]: some performance tests are failing. It's surprising because both were built successfully on Copr[2] some time ago. These tests don't seem to have consistent results, a test that passed might be failing on next run. What should I do in this case? [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89453649 [2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jrische/golang-github-elliotchanc... -- 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=2074412

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074412 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-44c237e9cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-44c237e9cc -- 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=2074412

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074412 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-0bc8f1fe14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0bc8f1fe14 -- 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=2074412

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074412 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-0bc8f1fe14 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=2074412