Bug 1367819

I've been using this for a few days now and it's working great, so let's get it into the distribution proper.

There isn't much to this package.  It's just one source file.  Upstream has never made a release, so Version: 0 is appropriate.

Most of the fedora-review template is kind of pointless but it doesn't hurt to paste it.  But first...

Note that nothing owns %_libdir/znc, which fedora-review conveniently complains of.  This is a bug in znc, which I'll file.

I know there isn't much in README.md, but it should be packaged since at least it includes a link to proper documentation and information about the author.

I'm supposed to ask you to ask upstream to include a proper license file in their source.

So, really, it's just one %doc line, I think.  Not worth holding this up over that.

APPROVED

Fedora review output:

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or
     generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/tibbs/work/review/1367819-znc-
     clientbuffer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/znc
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/znc
[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.
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[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]: 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 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          znc-clientbuffer-debuginfo-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc24.src.rpm
znc-clientbuffer.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: znc-clientbuffer-debuginfo-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
znc-clientbuffer.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
znc-clientbuffer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    znc(x86-64)

znc-clientbuffer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
znc-clientbuffer:
    znc-clientbuffer
    znc-clientbuffer(x86-64)

znc-clientbuffer-debuginfo:
    znc-clientbuffer-debuginfo
    znc-clientbuffer-debuginfo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
znc-clientbuffer: /usr/lib64/znc/clientbuffer.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jpnurmi/znc-clientbuffer/archive/fe0f368e1fcab2b89d5c94209822d9b616cea840/znc-clientbuffer-fe0f368.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 64130fa79317f92e919692684eeb32600eeb440d8fdde941f3aee11b80917323
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64130fa79317f92e919692684eeb32600eeb440d8fdde941f3aee11b80917323


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 1367819
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

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

znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c61fb204df

znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bb95d1dd68

znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-bb95d1dd68

znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.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-c61fb204df

znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

znc-clientbuffer-0-0.1gitfe0f368.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.