Bug 1342737

Please, add the license file to %license and adjust it to be GPLv2+

I intended to take this review as part of a swap, but apparently took too long getting here.  I'll just say that I did a full review, and the 2 license issues noted in comment 1 are all that I found.

Oh, sorry, I use this software for my backups and I just found it here alone :)

Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/btrfs-sxbackup.spec
SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc23.src.rpm

Thank you for taking this review!

I changed the license and added the license file, I don't know how I missed that in the first place.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> I intended to take this review as part of a swap, but apparently took too
> long getting here.  I'll just say that I did a full review, and the 2
> license issues noted in comment 1 are all that I found.

No worries, the purpose of a review swap is to get the package reviewed, if somebody else does the review instead, that's fine too :P

Everything looks fine. Approved.

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

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



===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/juan/1342737
     -btrfs-sxbackup/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-1.fc23.src.rpm
btrfs-sxbackup.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog
btrfs-sxbackup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No existe el fichero o el directorio
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
btrfs-sxbackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
btrfs-sxbackup:
    btrfs-sxbackup



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/masc3d/btrfs-sxbackup/archive/0.6.6.tar.gz#/btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ee3b4911f318b55b23dd2abcbbc6618e243370a3044a313c1f0a59707e23a909
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ee3b4911f318b55b23dd2abcbbc6618e243370a3044a313c1f0a59707e23a909

Thank you for reviewing!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/btrfs-sxbackup

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e58d159972

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-aca792d485

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-635a338e80

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.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-e58d159972

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-aca792d485

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-2016-635a338e80

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.7-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6c687157ee

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-de9f8e92ca

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-aca792d485

Sorry for the noise, I'm having problems with bodhi: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/848

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.7-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-de9f8e92ca

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.7-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-6c687157ee

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.6-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.7-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

btrfs-sxbackup-0.6.7-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.