[Bug 1837798] Review Request: golang-github-elves-elvish - Elvish shell

2020-07-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837798

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2020-07-05 08:41:09




-- 
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
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org


[Bug 1837798] Review Request: golang-github-elves-elvish - Elvish shell

2020-06-20 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837798



--- Comment #2 from Igor Raits  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-elves-elvish


-- 
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
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org


[Bug 1837798] Review Request: golang-github-elves-elvish - Elvish shell

2020-06-20 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837798

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Please fix the remaining issue before import.

Package APPROVED.



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/golang-github-elves-
  elvish/README.md
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files


= 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". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1837798-golang-github-elves-
 elvish/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-golangplus-sort-devel,
 compat-golang-github-ini-devel, golang-github-containerd-cri-devel,
 golang-github-docker-compose-on-kubernetes-devel, golang-github-
 [...]
 github-google-wire-devel, golang-github-git-lfs-netrc-devel, compat-
 golang-github-commonmark-mdurl-devel, golang-github-ojii-gettext-
 devel, golang-github-makenowjust-heredoc-devel)
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 481280 bytes in 56 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]: 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]: If the source package does not include 

[Bug 1837798] Review Request: golang-github-elves-elvish - Elvish shell

2020-05-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837798
Bug 1837798 depends on bug 1837793, which changed state.

Bug 1837793 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-xiaq-persistent - Persistent 
data structures for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837793

   What|Removed |Added

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


[Bug 1837798] Review Request: golang-github-elves-elvish - Elvish shell

2020-05-19 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837798

Carson Black  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1837793





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837793
[Bug 1837793] Review Request: golang-github-xiaq-persistent - Persistent data
structures for Go
-- 
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
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org