Bug 1716101

I will review this package.

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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)". 30
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /media/data/rpmbuild/1716101-foliate/licensecheck.txt
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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 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 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]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1792000 bytes in /usr/share
[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: foliate-1.0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          foliate-1.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm
foliate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eBook -> e Book, book
foliate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBook -> e Book, book
foliate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
foliate.x86_64: E: no-binary
foliate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.johnfactotum.Foliate
foliate.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eBook -> e Book, book
foliate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBook -> e Book, book
foliate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
foliate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eBook -> e Book, book
foliate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBook -> e Book, book
foliate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
foliate.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://johnfactotum.github.io/foliate/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
foliate.x86_64: E: no-binary
foliate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.johnfactotum.Foliate
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/johnfactotum/foliate/archive/1.0.1/foliate-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a534cb53e7458a51c4bba8ee1999ce75f3c9d9a8c283ccc13f84c58d8188c6e0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a534cb53e7458a51c4bba8ee1999ce75f3c9d9a8c283ccc13f84c58d8188c6e0


Requires
--------
foliate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/gjs
    hicolor-icon-theme



Provides
--------
foliate:
    application()
    application(com.github.johnfactotum.Foliate.desktop)
    foliate
    foliate(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(com.github.johnfactotum.Foliate.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(application/epub+zip)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1716101 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, PHP, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Python, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

This package contains no binaries, so it must be noarch. This minor issue can be fixed during package import. Package approved.

Fixed. Thank you.

Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/foliate.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/foliate-1.1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/foliate

FEDORA-2019-3b54a8be98 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3b54a8be98

FEDORA-2019-83dac41016 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-83dac41016

foliate-1.1.0-1.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-2019-3b54a8be98

foliate-1.1.0-1.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-2019-83dac41016

foliate-1.1.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

foliate-1.1.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.