Bug 1722393

 + RPM build errors:

BUILDSTDERR: error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64/usr/share/R/library/devtools/NEWS
BUILDSTDERR:     File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64/usr/share/R/library/devtools/NEWS

   It's NEWS.md:

%doc %{rlibdir}/%{packname}/NEWS.md


 - RPM build errors:

BUILDSTDERR: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/WORDLIST
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/rstudio/addins.dcf
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/CONDUCT.md
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/NEWS.md
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/appveyor.yml
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/codecov.yml
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/cran-comments.md
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/gpl-v3.md
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/mit-license.txt
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/omni-README
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/packagename-package.r
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/readme-rmd-pre-commit.sh
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/revdep.R
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/template.Rproj
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/test-example.R
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/testthat.R
BUILDSTDERR:    /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/travis.yml

%{rlibdir}/%{packname}/rstudio
%{rlibdir}/%{packname}/templates
%{rlibdir}/%{packname}/WORDLIST


 - Ask upstream for a license file


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", "GPL (v2 or later)". 202 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/R-devtools/review-R-
     devtools/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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.

===== 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.
[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.

R:
[x]: The %check macro is present
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
     Note: Latest upstream version is 2.0.2, packaged version is 2.0.2

===== 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: R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
          R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.src.rpm
R-devtools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/readme-rmd-pre-commit.sh 644 /bin/bash 
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Oops, sorry, I forgot to upload the fixed ones:

Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/R-devtools.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/R-devtools-2.0.2-2.fc30.src.rpm

Ping?

Also, here's a koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37285528

Package approved.

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

FEDORA-2020-da3c0867e9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-da3c0867e9

R-devtools-2.1.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-da3c0867e9

R-devtools-2.1.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.