Bug 1701204

Summary: Review Request: howl - Lightweight editor with a keyboard-centric minimalistic UI
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Artem <ego.cordatus>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Vitaly <vitaly>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, vitaly
Target Milestone: ---Flags: vitaly: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-06-19 22:45:35 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Artem 2019-04-18 11:22:24 UTC 
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl-0.6-3.fc30.src.rpm

Description:
Howl is a general purpose editor that aims to be both lightweight and fully
customizable. It's built on top of the very fast LuaJIT runtime, uses Gtk for
its interface, and can be extended in either Lua or Moonscript. It's known to
work on Linux, but should work on at least the *BSD's as well.

Fedora Account System Username: atim

Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/howl/
Comment 1 Vitaly 2019-04-18 11:35:19 UTC 
> cd src
> %make_build

This can be replaced by %make_build -C src

> pushd src
> %make_install PREFIX=%{_prefix}

This can be replaced by %make_install -C src

> Requires:       luajit

%{?_isa} must be added.
Comment 2 Artem 2019-04-18 11:55:59 UTC 
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl-0.6-4.fc30.src.rpm
Comment 3 Artem 2019-04-19 06:23:19 UTC 
Some rpmlint errors https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/issues/501#issuecomment-484565885
Comment 4 Vitaly 2019-04-19 12:03:12 UTC 
> Some rpmlint errors

Just remove this examples.
Comment 5 Vitaly 2019-04-19 12:20:43 UTC 
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]: 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* Expat License", "*No copyright* Public domain",
     "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License Public
     domain". 945 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/vitaly/1701204-howl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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:
[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 howl-
     debuginfo , howl-debugsource
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6789120 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: howl-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          howl-debuginfo-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          howl-debugsource-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          howl-0.6-4.fc31.src.rpm
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee 
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon 
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] 
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)] 
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec
howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric
howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
howl.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: howl-debuginfo-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee 
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon 
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] 
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)] 
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 8 warnings.



Requires
--------
howl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

howl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

howl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/ruby
    /usr/bin/sh
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    luajit(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
howl-debugsource:
    howl-debugsource
    howl-debugsource(x86-64)

howl-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    howl-debuginfo
    howl-debuginfo(x86-64)

howl:
    application()
    application(howl.desktop)
    howl
    howl(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(howl.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(text/plain)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/releases/download/0.6/howl-0.6.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1701204
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
Comment 6 Vitaly 2019-04-19 12:23:46 UTC 
License check:

*No copyright* Public domain
----------------------------
howl-0.6/src/deps/LuaJIT-2.1.0-beta3/src/lj_alloc.c

Expat License Public domain
---------------------------
howl-0.6/src/deps/LuaJIT-2.1.0-beta3/COPYRIGHT

The final License tag must be:

License: MIT and Public Domain and BSD
Comment 7 Vitaly 2019-04-19 12:28:02 UTC 
1. LuaJit must be unbundled. Fedora already contains it as luajit package: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/luajit
2. License: MIT and Public Domain and BSD
3. Official tarball contains binaries in ./bin directory. All of them must be removed in %prep section.
4. Package should be splitted to -data noarch subpackage.
Comment 8 Artem 2019-04-20 09:06:47 UTC 
Few quick fixes:

Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl-0.6-6.fc30.src.rpm

Now most interesting part:

 * unbundling LuaJIT
 * should we delete /bin directory (bash scripts) or not?

...
Comment 9 Artem 2019-05-16 09:42:11 UTC 
Unbundle LuaJIT will be not so easy https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/issues/503#issuecomment-490917622

But:
  Maybe that would fall under:
> All packages whose upstreams have no mechanism to build against system libraries MAY opt to carry bundled libraries
Comment 10 Vitaly 2019-05-16 10:31:28 UTC 
> Unbundle LuaJIT will be not so easy

Fedora already has required 2.1 beta 3. You can unbundle it manually by removing it's directory on %prep stage and fixing build paths to follow packaged version.
Comment 11 Artem 2019-06-16 13:37:28 UTC 
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl-0.6-7.fc30.src.rpm

Apologize for delay. Can we bundle it for now and in future releases fix this? Also possible to build it for older Fedora releases with bundled luajit.

Also if we delete /bin dir with shell scripts there will be errors on %install stage.
Comment 12 Vitaly 2019-06-16 15:48:28 UTC 
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
     License", "Expat License Public domain", "*No copyright* Public
     domain".
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
[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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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:
[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 howl
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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 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: howl-0.6-7.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          howl-data-0.6-7.fc31.noarch.rpm
          howl-debuginfo-0.6-7.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          howl-debugsource-0.6-7.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          howl-0.6-7.fc31.src.rpm
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec
howl-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
howl-data.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby 
howl-data.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)] 
howl-data.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/howl.desktop howl
howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric
howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: howl-debuginfo-0.6-7.fc31.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
howl-data.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
howl-data.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby 
howl-data.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)] 
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec
howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/releases/download/0.6/howl-0.6.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1


Requires
--------
howl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    hicolor-icon-theme
    howl-data
    libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

howl-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/ruby
    /usr/bin/sh
    howl(x86-64)

howl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

howl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
howl:
    bundled(luajit)
    howl
    howl(x86-64)

howl-data:
    application()
    application(howl.desktop)
    howl-data
    metainfo()
    metainfo(howl.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(text/plain)

howl-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    howl-debuginfo
    howl-debuginfo(x86-64)

howl-debugsource:
    howl-debugsource
    howl-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1701204 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comment 13 Vitaly 2019-06-16 15:53:06 UTC 
1. You need to move to -data subpackage only contents of %{_datadir}/%{name} directory. All others (especially manifest and desktop file) should be placed in main package.

%files
%doc README.md Changelog.md
%license LICENSE.md
%{_bindir}/%{name}*
%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg
%{_metainfodir}/%{name}.appdata.xml

%files data
%{_datadir}/%{name}

2. Get rid of all rpmlint errors:

howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby 
howl-data.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] 
howl-data.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)]

You must change chmod for all this scripts to 0755 or remove their shebangs.
Comment 14 Artem 2019-06-16 16:09:50 UTC 
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl-0.6-8.fc30.src.rpm
Comment 15 Artem 2019-06-16 16:58:43 UTC 
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/howl-0.6-9.fc30.src.rpm
Comment 16 Vitaly 2019-06-16 18:48:37 UTC 
LGTM now. Package approved.
Comment 17 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-06-17 13:33:57 UTC 
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/howl
Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2019-06-18 15:31:00 UTC 
FEDORA-2019-bd0d767c3d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bd0d767c3d
Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2019-06-18 15:31:41 UTC 
FEDORA-2019-f1f65a9d18 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f1f65a9d18
Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2019-06-19 01:03:09 UTC 
howl-0.6-10.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-bd0d767c3d
Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2019-06-19 04:14:01 UTC 
howl-0.6-10.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-f1f65a9d18
Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2019-06-19 22:45:35 UTC 
howl-0.6-10.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2019-06-20 03:52:46 UTC 
howl-0.6-10.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.