https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2431607
--- Comment #2 from Maxwell G <[email protected]> --- Notes ========= > %files > [...] > %{_udevrulesdir}/*.rules > %{_unitdir}/*.service * Avoid globbing everything under a shared directory. See <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists>. * This package uses cgo, so you should set the correct build flags. --- ipp-usb.spec.orig +++ ipp-usb.spec @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ %build %global gomodulesmode GO111MODULE=on +export CGO_CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" CGO_LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" # -mod=vendor is default as of go 1.14; go.mod is set to 1.11 %gobuild -mod=vendor -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/ipp-usb %{goipath} @@ -90,6 +91,7 @@ %check %go_vendor_license_check -c %{SOURCE2} %if %{with check} +export CGO_CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" CGO_LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" %gotest -mod=vendor ./... %endif > -devel subpackage does not have a replacement, so it will be added to > fedora-obsolete-packages to handle its removal from system. * I don't think you need the Obsoletes, since the golang-*-devel packages are not expected to be installed on end user systems in the first place. And even if they were, there shouldn't be a need to forcibly remove the old -devel subpackage via Obsoletes, as it doesn't depend on the main package and won't break updates. And even if it did, it'd be better to add the Obsoletes to the new ipp-usb package, as fedora-obsolete-packages is considered a last resort. Vendored Go Package Review ============== This package was generated using go2rpm and Go Vendor Tools, which simplifies the review. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated - [x] The specfile is legible. - [x] The SRPM contains a valid `go-vendor-tools.toml`. - The default `detector = "askalono"` is included unless there is justification. - Manual license overrides are correct. - [x] The latest version is packaged or packaging an earlier version is justified. - [x] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct identifiers. - [x] The package builds successfully in mock. - [x] Package is installable (checked by fedora-review). - [x] There are no relevant rpmlint errors. - [x] The package runs tests in %check. - [x] `%goipath` is set correctly. - [x] The package's binaries don't conflict with binaries already in the distribution. (Some Go projects include utility binaries with very generic names) - [!] %files does not contain any broad glob patterns. - [x] The package does not use `%gometa -f` if it has dependents that still build for %ix86. - [x] The package complies with the rest of the Golang and general Packaging Guidelines. Source: <https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/fedora-scripts/tree/main/item/go-sig/vendored_review_template.md> I'm happy to approve the package once the issues are fixed, or Martin is welcome to pick up the review from here. -- 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=2431607 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202431607%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
