Bug 1496587

Taking this review.

I notice that upstream provides a tarball: https://github.com/vasi/squashfuse/releases/download/0.1.100/squashfuse-0.1.100.tar.gz

Is there a reason you didn't use it?

In addition...

> Requires: fuse-libs, libattr, lz4-libs, xz-libs, zlib

This is completely unneeded. RPM should generate this if everything was detected correctly at build time.

> Is there a reason you didn't use it?

Haha, a misunderstanding from previous reviews. Resolved now! Means we get epel6, nice.

> This is completely unneeded. RPM should generate this if everything was detected correctly at build time.

Verified and removed.

SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kyrofa/squashfuse-rpm/master/squashfuse.spec
SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kyrofa/squashfuse/fedora-26-x86_64/00608739-squashfuse/squashfuse-0.1.100-1.fc26.src.rpm

> BuildRequires: autoconf, automake,

These particular build requirements are no longer needed.

Indeed not, removed.

SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kyrofa/squashfuse-rpm/master/squashfuse.spec
SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kyrofa/squashfuse/fedora-26-x86_64/00608754-squashfuse/squashfuse-0.1.100-1.fc26.src.rpm

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

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



===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
     "GPL". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/makerpm/1496587-squashfuse/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     squashfuse-debuginfo
[x]: 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.
[-]: %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]: 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: 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: squashfuse-0.1.100-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          squashfuse-debuginfo-0.1.100-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          squashfuse-0.1.100-1.fc28.src.rpm
squashfuse.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
squashfuse.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) squashfs -> squashes, squash's, squash
squashfuse.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
squashfuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary squashfuse_ll
squashfuse-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
squashfuse.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
squashfuse.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) squashfs -> squashes, squash's, squash
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: squashfuse-debuginfo-0.1.100-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
squashfuse-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
squashfuse-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/vasi/squashfuse <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
squashfuse-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
squashfuse.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically
squashfuse.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) squashfs -> squashes, squash's, squash
squashfuse.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/vasi/squashfuse <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
squashfuse.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
squashfuse.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary squashfuse_ll
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.



Requires
--------
squashfuse-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

squashfuse (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2()(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.4)(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.5)(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit)
    libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.8)(64bit)
    liblz4.so.1()(64bit)
    liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
    liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
squashfuse-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    squashfuse-debuginfo
    squashfuse-debuginfo(x86-64)

squashfuse:
    squashfuse
    squashfuse(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/vasi/squashfuse/releases/download/0.1.100/squashfuse-0.1.100.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2da9f53482f7e3c0ab407dd47062a0feee7cda770b2342def1d36271e89f2d7f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2da9f53482f7e3c0ab407dd47062a0feee7cda770b2342def1d36271e89f2d7f


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1496587 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 APPROVED.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/squashfuse

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-a197b3b65b

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-1b846c05b0

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c728b201cb

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8dc18895af

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6cafa48eac

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

squashfuse-0.1.100-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.