Bug 1765729

Thanks Jerry---putting this one through fedora-review now.

Looks good. XXX Approved XXX

One minor issue:

- gap-pkg-format.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-format/LICENSE
Please let upstream know

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
^
Not tested this out.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: gap-pkg-format-1.4.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-format-doc-1.4.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-format-1.4.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
gap-pkg-format.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-format.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-format/LICENSE
gap-pkg-format-doc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-format-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
gap-pkg-format-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://gap-packages.github.io/format/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
gap-pkg-format-doc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-format-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-format.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://gap-packages.github.io/format/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
gap-pkg-format.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-format.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-format/LICENSE
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gap-packages/format/releases/download/v1.4.2/format-1.4.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1af56e98c66a97ae2b994cd882849b051769fba36b4e085891549d16a983e976
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1af56e98c66a97ae2b994cd882849b051769fba36b4e085891549d16a983e976

Requires
--------
gap-pkg-format (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-core

gap-pkg-format-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-online-help
    gap-pkg-format

Provides
--------
gap-pkg-format:
    gap-pkg-format

gap-pkg-format-doc:
    gap-pkg-format-doc

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1765729
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Python, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you, Ankur!  I will let upstream know about the license.

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

FEDORA-2019-166603c4a4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-166603c4a4

gap-pkg-format-1.4.2-1.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-2019-166603c4a4

gap-pkg-format-1.4.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.