Bug 1348959

Link are not working, forbidden by server

They're working again, thanks for warning me.

This is an unofficial review, I'm not a packager.

I'm not really sure if this package would be useful to Fedora,
anyway these are my comments:

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
	This is not needed anymore.

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
	These are not needed

make %{?_smp_mflags}
	You are not using Fedora's optimization flags available in macro %{optflags}

You are not building with -g option, so no debug symbols are generated.
See the output of rpmlint command below.


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

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


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

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

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)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/guido/tmp/review-1348959/1348959-srandrd/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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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:
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[ ]: 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 srandrd-
     debuginfo
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: srandrd-0.5-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          srandrd-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          srandrd-0.5-1.fc26.src.rpm
srandrd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) randr -> rand, randy, rand r
srandrd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xorg -> xor, org, Borg
srandrd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xserver -> server, x server, serve
srandrd-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
srandrd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) randr -> rand, randy, rand r
srandrd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xorg -> xor, org, Borg
srandrd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xserver -> server, x server, serve
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: srandrd-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
srandrd-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
srandrd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) randr -> rand, randy, rand r
srandrd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xorg -> xor, org, Borg
srandrd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xserver -> server, x server, serve
srandrd-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.


Requires
--------
srandrd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

srandrd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Provides
--------
srandrd:
    srandrd
    srandrd(x86-64)

srandrd-debuginfo:
    srandrd-debuginfo
    srandrd-debuginfo(x86-64)


Source checksums
----------------
https://bitbucket.org/portix/srandrd/downloads/srandrd-0.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bd8c208467e53408f871efe0ebb627ad11ce3fc918196f1f9c6cb4e3a5a21113
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6faaaf6088254ce9ec92d2043b6a87c9e20c26ecbca2df21bffb3375d0dfbf2
However, diff -r shows no differences

This is an unofficial review (cont).
Some other comments.

Sorry for the above statement, I meant I don't know this software, so I cannot test functionality, but only packaging.

Some missing BuidRequires

BuildRequires:  gcc
BuildRequires:  make

You could use %{make_build} macro exporting CFLAGS and LDFLAGS like this:

export CFLAGS="%{optflags} -pedantic -std=c99"
export LDFLAGS="%{__global_ldflags} -lX11 -lXrandr"
%make_build

Cheers

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The submitter account doesn't exist anymore, therefore this ticket will be closed.