Bug 1654876

 - You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %install

 - You should install README.md and CHANGELOG.md with %doc, no need for 

install README.md %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}/README.md
install CHANGELOG.md %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}/CHANGELOG.md

 - %{_prefix}/share → %{_datadir}

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %install
> 
>  - You should install README.md and CHANGELOG.md with %doc, no need for 
> 
> install README.md %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}/README.md
> install CHANGELOG.md %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}/CHANGELOG.md
> 
>  - %{_prefix}/share → %{_datadir}

I fixed all three things, checked rpmlint and added a -doc subpackage. Can you check it again?

New Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00832377-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions.spec
New SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00832377-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

Did you link to the wrong files? I see no changes.

 You don't need a separate doc subpackages for two files.

 Not needed:

install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}

%{_pkgdocdir} in %files

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> Did you link to the wrong files? I see no changes.

Sorry, I guess I ran a build for an old commit in fedora COPR.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
>  You don't need a separate doc subpackages for two files.
> 
>  Not needed:
> 
> install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}
> 
> %{_pkgdocdir} in %files

I will fix this but can you explain when it is appropriate to create a separate package for documentation? Or is this never suppose to happen?

Also why are "install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}" and "%{_pkgdocdir} in %files" not needed?

> I will fix this but can you explain when it is appropriate to create a separate package for documentation? Or is this never suppose to happen?

Usually when the documentation is over 1MB or contains a lot of files.

> Also why are "install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}" and "%{_pkgdocdir} in %files" not needed?

You don't need to create the dir, specifying %doc README.md will take care of that.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> > I will fix this but can you explain when it is appropriate to create a separate package for documentation? Or is this never suppose to happen?
> 
> Usually when the documentation is over 1MB or contains a lot of files.
> 
> > Also why are "install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}" and "%{_pkgdocdir} in %files" not needed?
> 
> You don't need to create the dir, specifying %doc README.md will take care
> of that.

Thanks for the information. I tried building the package but I can't get the tests to work. I'm not sure what to do next, should I simply comment-out the %check function or create an issue upstream and make sure the tests work?

Current spec file: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00832436-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions.spec
Build logs: https://pastebin.com/aMAV46iB

Yeah you could drop the test, the package is simple enough I guess.

Allright.

New Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00834725-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions.spec
New SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00834725-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

 - Include the Release info in your %changelog entry:

* Thu Nov 29 2018 Dillen Meijboom <info> - 0.5.0-1


Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.



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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
     /zsh-autosuggestions/review-zsh-autosuggestions/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
zsh-autosuggestions.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.0 ['0.5.0-1.fc30', '0.5.0-1']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
>  - Include the Release info in your %changelog entry:
> 
> * Thu Nov 29 2018 Dillen Meijboom <info> - 0.5.0-1
> 
> 
> Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.

Sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by "Release info". Can you explain?

The changelog entry is composed of

* Date Name <email> - Version-Release

You're missing the Release part: -1

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> The changelog entry is composed of
> 
> * Date Name <email> - Version-Release
> 
> You're missing the Release part: -1

Allright, updated.

New Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00835118-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions.spec
New SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00835118-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

Are you still looking to get sponsored?

No response from reporter. Closing in favour of new review.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1773300 ***