Bug 1225241

[x] - OK
[-] - not applicable
[?] - question
[!] - todo

Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

There are some questions inline below.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1225241-stlink/licensecheck.txt
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
I think %configure should be used instead of ./configure to get proper flags.

[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.
What about the gui part? There seems to be some gtk app which is not built.

[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
I cannot test it, but at least the binaries run.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define _buildshell /bin/bash
Please use %global.

[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: stlink-1.2.0-0.1.20150526gitfdfb82b.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          stlink-1.2.0-0.1.20150526gitfdfb82b.fc23.src.rpm
stlink.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary st-term
stlink.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary st-flash
stlink.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary st-info
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: stlink-debuginfo-1.2.0-0.1.20150526gitfdfb82b.fc23.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
stlink.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary st-term
stlink.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary st-flash
stlink.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary st-info
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Requires
--------
stlink (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
stlink:
    stlink
    stlink(x86-64)

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/texane/stlink/archive/fdfb82b53ca44d389cb2666cb557996203ed9093/stlink-fdfb82b53ca44d389cb2666cb557996203ed9093.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e266e9d2f75dc6b8428979f5feb19c52185b7f8325ce0895c7105f40a0976eae
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e266e9d2f75dc6b8428979f5feb19c52185b7f8325ce0895c7105f40a0976eae


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1225241
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

A note for the future: if you decide to install the udev rules, use %{_udevrulesdir} and not /etc/udev/rules.d as the stlink documentation suggests.

Also, what about the gdbserver part?

pbrobinson's scratch build of linux-user-chroot?#b7afe5173cbd31b029b027b6f8a14baa5e6ce87a for epel7-archbootstrap and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/linux-user-chroot?#b7afe5173cbd31b029b027b6f8a14baa5e6ce87a failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12089939

Any plans to finish this?

If this review hang can you see my new review request?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1488384

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1488384 ***