Bug 1748012

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.
[!]: 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]: 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) (with incorrect FSF
     address)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1748012-mkrdns/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 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]: 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]: 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:
[!]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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: mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.fc32.noarch.rpm
          mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.fc32.src.rpm
mkrdns.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons
mkrdns.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
mkrdns.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons
mkrdns.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/oasys/mkrdns <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/oasys/mkrdns/archive/6b3f3a40e2d5607e04edb6d1954c068c3b1a693f/mkrdns-6b3f3a4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 180837ba47ef386cf7b681a23dd7065f7346471576cdaafd849f112a29f4880c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 180837ba47ef386cf7b681a23dd7065f7346471576cdaafd849f112a29f4880c


Requires
--------
mkrdns (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    perl-Getopt-Long



Provides
--------
mkrdns:
    mkrdns



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1748012
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Java, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

I am missing license file inside the source package. Do you think it is feasible to add it into the release?

Also, licensecheck complains about incorrect FSF address. Do you think this could be fixed upstream?

Correct text should be on [1]

GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
----------------------------------------------
mkrdns-6b3f3a40e2d5607e04edb6d1954c068c3b1a693f/mkrdns
mkrdns-6b3f3a40e2d5607e04edb6d1954c068c3b1a693f/mkrdns.dist

Unknown or generated
--------------------
mkrdns-6b3f3a40e2d5607e04edb6d1954c068c3b1a693f/README.md

1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Nice packaging though, I have nothing else to comment. Great work Spike!

Thanks a lot Petr for the review!

Since https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text states that

> 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 must be included in %license. If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.

I went ahead and did exactly that: https://github.com/oasys/mkrdns/pull/5
This PR would also update the FSF's address.

Thank you! I think this package is suitable to be included in Fedora, giving it a plus.

It seems upstream is not responding. No active development should not block acceptance.

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a336bc3b34 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a336bc3b34

FEDORA-2019-75352e4f4a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-75352e4f4a

FEDORA-2019-fe99c88ed2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fe99c88ed2

FEDORA-EPEL-2019-fa3fec14e3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-fa3fec14e3

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.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-2019-75352e4f4a

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.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-2019-fe99c88ed2

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-a336bc3b34

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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-EPEL-2019-fa3fec14e3

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

mkrdns-3.3-1.20190902git6b3f3a4.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.