Bug 1542663

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/bitlbee,
     /usr/share/bitlbee

You should own thses dirs:

%dir %{_libdir}/bitlbee
%dir %{_datadir}/bitlbee


[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: bitlbee-discord-0.4.1/configure.ac:32

Replace it with LT_INIT.
See for details https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html

    Actually I've sent a patch for this upstream. Add it to your SPEC:

Patch0:         https://github.com/sm00th/bitlbee-discord/pull/135.patch#/%{name}-%{version}-remove_obsolete_m4s_macro.patch

   And add -p1 to autosetup:

%autosetup -p1



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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bitlbee-discord/review-
     bitlbee-discord/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/bitlbee,
     /usr/share/bitlbee
[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
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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: bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          bitlbee-discord-debuginfo-0.4.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          bitlbee-discord-debugsource-0.4.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
bitlbee-discord-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

> %dir %{_libdir}/bitlbee
> %dir %{_datadir}/bitlbee

Ah, my bad. This is because I forgot to require bitlbee (which owns these directories), and RPM doesn't detect it automatically.

Thanks for the LT_INIT patch. I've added it and a Requires: bitlbee.

Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/chat/bitlbee-discord.spec
SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/chat/bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc27.src.rpm

Package is approved.

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

bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e3cf77ed71

bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-829e7a235a

bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2018-e3cf77ed71

bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-829e7a235a

bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

bitlbee-discord-0.4.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.