[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-15 15:52:52



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.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-2017-263decc3c1

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-3d65fc4670

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3d65fc4670

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-3.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-2017-5784d9e356

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-cf91759923

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf91759923

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-ebf1727379

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-1.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-f1099cbe6a

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f1099cbe6a

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ebf1727379

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/reg

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
rpmbuild fails with debuginfo enabled, so debuginfo has been disabled for now.
See: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jLBnKTZ5Z4s9zFujCHtu5g/ 

Waiving the debuginfo requirement, which can be fixed at a later date.

Specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft and the MUST items have
been accounted for.

Approved.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #13 from Adam Miller  ---
Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg.spec
SRPM URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg-0.4.1-1.src.rpm

scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20002741

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #12 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
(In reply to Adam Miller from comment #11)
> (In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #9)
> > 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> >  found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)",
> >  "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have
> >  unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> >  /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt
> > 
> > --- Main source uses the MIT license.
> > 
> > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> > 
> > --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with
> > unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If
> > anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves.
> > 
> > [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.
> > [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> > 
> > --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and
> > /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server
> > instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of
> > /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging
> > guidelines for this if any exists)
> > 
> 
> That is true if the configuration file is for the actual service. The
> configuration values here are fed into the systemd unit. However if this has
> changed and /etc/sysconfig/ has fallen out of favor for this scenario as
> well I'll gladly switch it. I was mostly following along with what other
> prominent software written in golang are doing such as docker and
> kubernetes.

You're right as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#.5BInstall.5D
and lol at myself for having gotten that mixed up.

So, [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target <- that LGTM


> > 
> > [-]: 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.
> > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> > [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> > 
> > --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above.
> > 
> > [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 204800 bytes in 6 files.
> > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> > 
> > 
> > Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL?
> 
> Will do.



Also, jchaloup mentioned devel and unit-test-devel, that's if you include the
original source code of the reg package in the -devel package. Take a look at
the 'docker-devel' and 'docker-unit-test-devel' package for example.

(I'm personally not a fan of golang -devel packages, and I think we're now left
with 150+ of those packages which will sadly be left unmaintained).

So, feel free to not create those since those are optional anyway.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #11 from Adam Miller  ---
(In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #9)
> 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)",
>  "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have
>  unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt
> 
> --- Main source uses the MIT license.
> 
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> 
> --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with
> unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If
> anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves.
> 
> [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.
> [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> 
> --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and
> /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server
> instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of
> /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging
> guidelines for this if any exists)
> 

That is true if the configuration file is for the actual service. The
configuration values here are fed into the systemd unit. However if this has
changed and /etc/sysconfig/ has fallen out of favor for this scenario as well
I'll gladly switch it. I was mostly following along with what other prominent
software written in golang are doing such as docker and kubernetes. 

> 
> [-]: 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.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> 
> --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above.
> 
> [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 204800 bytes in 6 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> 
> 
> Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL?

Will do.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #10 from Adam Miller  ---
(In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #8)
> Could you provide the following header in the spec (some of it is already
> there)?
> 
> %global provider_prefix github.com/jessfraz/reg
> %global import_path %{provider_prefix}
> %global commit  94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888f370456
> %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
> 
> I have a tooling the parses spec and extracts the macros from go packages.
> It helps to check which go projects are packaged in Fedora.
> 
> The import path needs to be in the full form, including the 'req'.
> 
> Why do you think the debuginfo is not supported? You can use:
> go build -ldflags "-B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \\n')".
> 

Fixed.

> Any plans to build it on epel6/7?

Yes.

> 
> Both devel and unit-test-devel subpackages are optional. However, if the
> devel package is present, it can be scanned and analysed.

devel and unit-test-devel subpackages of what?

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #9 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt

--- Main source uses the MIT license.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

--- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with
unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If
anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves.

[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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.

--- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and
/var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server
instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of
/etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging
guidelines for this if any exists)


[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

--- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above.

[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 204800 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines


Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL?

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jchal...@redhat.com



--- Comment #8 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Could you provide the following header in the spec (some of it is already
there)?

%global provider_prefix github.com/jessfraz/reg
%global import_path %{provider_prefix}
%global commit  94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888f370456
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})

I have a tooling the parses spec and extracts the macros from go packages. It
helps to check which go projects are packaged in Fedora.

The import path needs to be in the full form, including the 'req'.

Why do you think the debuginfo is not supported? You can use:
go build -ldflags "-B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \\n')".

Any plans to build it on epel6/7?

Both devel and unit-test-devel subpackages are optional. However, if the devel
package is present, it can be scanned and analysed.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ra...@electronsweatshop.com



--- Comment #7 from Randy Barlow  ---
For the record, I am +1 to handing over the review ☺

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #6 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
review as per fedora-review:

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL


= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 204800 bytes in 6 files.
[ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in reg-
 server
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC|admil...@redhat.com,|
   |l...@redhat.com,|
   |ra...@electronsweatshop.com |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
After checking with Randy, I'm assigning this to myself as reviewer.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
   Assignee|ra...@electronsweatshop.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review?  |



-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
Hi Randy, just checking if you're still reviewing this?

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #3 from Adam Miller  ---
Updated items listed above that I said I would, I'm still not 100% sure what to
do about the bundling just yet as well as the license checks.



Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg.spec
SRPM URL:
https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg-0.2.0-2.git.0.94d0af5.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(admiller@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #2 from Adam Miller  ---
1) The app cannot, it's authored upstream expecting to run in a container and
it thinks that it has free reign over / and I actually moved it to /var/
because that seemed like a better idea. I do agree it's kind of weird. It's
possible this violates the FHS and if so, then I'll work on patching the
upstream code to cater to a better directory layout.

2) Would HTML/CSS content make sense in /var/lib/ ?

3) I don't believe we can get rid of bundled libs, this duplicates golang
packages already in Fedora but needs different versions of them.



4) Yes, I should do that instead of how I did. Will fix.

5) Not a typo, I followed the RHEL docs ->
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/sect-Managing_Services_with_systemd-Unit_Files.html

6) +1 it should be global

7) Will remove the .

8) I didn't get that lint warning, will check again to make sure I'm not using
tabs v spaces.




9) Yes, it's a mess and it doesn't have a good debugger. I have trouble taking
it seriously.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||admil...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(admiller@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
Some thoughts after a first pass:

* It's pretty weird for an RPM to put static css/html/js into /var, and I
  think it might be a violation of FHS since this is not state data, though I'm
  not sure. These files should go into /usr/share I believe. It sounds like
this
  app might also write to this same folder, which makes things a little weird.
  Can the app handle its static files being in /usr/share while it's variable
  data is in /var/lib?
* Also, I think it might be more typical to use /var/lib/ instead of /var.
* Wherever the static content goes, the spec file also needs to own the
  directory. Right now, /var/reg-server is unowned.
* Is it possible to avoid the bundled dependencies? If so, we should "make
  every effort". If not, I think we need to publicly contact upstream
  about a path to supporting system libraries as documented at:

 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries

  Also, I found the Go packaging draft guidelines to read confusingly
  about this, but it sounds like they prefer packages not to bundle:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Dependencies
* If we do need to keep the bundled deps, I think we might need the
  license field to list the licenses of them all. Based on fedora-review's
  license check, I suggest:
  License: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT


Optional/Suggestions/Questions:

* You can set Source0 to a GitHub URL despite there not being a release.
  For example:
 
https://github.com/jessfraz/reg/archive/94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888f370456/reg-0.2.0.tar.gz
* Is it a typo in the unit file that there's a =- instead of just = after
  EnvironmentFile?
* The --debug env var is uncommented, but it sounds like it's meant to be
  commented.
* You should use %global instead of %define on the docroot variable.
* You can remove the . from the Summary to get rid of a lint warning.
* Mixed usage of spaces and tabs can kill another lint warning.



* Go is a huge mess. You can't see any go code without constant "if error… if
error… if error…" everywhere. And the bundling and practice of not making
releases and just using git commits of your dependencies creates a huge nope of
a language. It's almost as bad as JavaScript!


-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ra...@electronsweatshop.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ra...@electronsweatshop.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org