Bug 1333235

License is not correct in spec, see below. Please update the spec as appropriate. Otherwise this is fine.



Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======

  * According to the LICENSE file this is 2 clause BSD, not GPL2+
    - Please clarify where you got gpl2+ from or change to BSD 
    - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD
  * Documentation in /usr/lib/gap
    - Acceptable as normal behaviour for GAP due to runtime browser requirements
  * Assuming it runs as described as %check passes

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace
     /fedora-scm/1333235-gap-pkg-crisp/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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
-------
Checking: gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-1.fc23.src.rpm
gap-pkg-crisp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automorphisms -> anthropomorphism
gap-pkg-crisp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US socle -> sole, Sophocles
gap-pkg-crisp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US socles -> soles, Sophocles
gap-pkg-crisp.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-crisp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automorphisms -> anthropomorphism
gap-pkg-crisp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US socle -> sole, Sophocles
gap-pkg-crisp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US socles -> soles, Sophocles
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
gap-pkg-crisp.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
gap-pkg-crisp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-core



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-crisp:
    gap-pkg-crisp



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.icm.tu-bs.de/~bhoeflin/crisp/crisp-1.4.4.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 06a39f5f850b61c1160314f01499d26f06e88296e7e771cb78348995a7e4cc36
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06a39f5f850b61c1160314f01499d26f06e88296e7e771cb78348995a7e4cc36


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1333235
Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(In reply to James Hogarth from comment #1)
> License is not correct in spec, see below. Please update the spec as
> appropriate. Otherwise this is fine.

That must have been a copy & paste error.  License tag is fixed here:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-crisp/gap-pkg-crisp.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-crisp/gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-2.fc25.src.rpm

LICENSE was the only blocker in the review

Thank you for fixing - review APPROVED

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gap-pkg-crisp

gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f0a6d8542e

gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-f0a6d8542e

gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.