Bug 1767252

I will take this review.  In the future, please use the standard "Spec URL: <url>\nSRPM URL: <url>" syntax so that fedora-review can read them.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

  The failure is due to the ffmpeg dependency.  See below.

- License confusion.  README.md says "Licensed under GNU GPL version 3", which
  would be a License tag of "GPLv3".  But the License tag in the spec file is
  "GPLv3+" and, indeed, the scripts have the "any later version" language, so
  it seems that README.md needs to be updated to match.

- %{_libexecdir}/%{name} is not owned by this package, but should be.

- "Requires: ffmpeg" must be removed.  You cannot have a dependency on a
  package that is not in Fedora.  See the first sentence of
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies

- Using rpm to check for ffmpeg doesn't seem like the right approach to me.
  I recommend removing "Requires: rpm", and changing the check in
  src-tf-ck-codec.sh to:

  if type -P ffmpeg > /dev/null

- "Requires: bash" is not needed; the dependency is generated automatically.

- Why do you have both of these lines in %files?

  %license LICENSE.md
  %{_pkgdocdir}/LICENSE.md

  I don't see the point of packaging that file twice.

- Consider modifying the Makefile to add -p to the install invocations, so that
  timestamps are preserved.  Also note that -c has no effect with GNU install.

- README.md has Windows-style return-newline pairs.  Please convert to
  Unix-style line endings.

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     See license issue above.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/transflac
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/transflac
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     Requires on ffmpeg is not allowed.
[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 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr. 
[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.
[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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     No %check script.
[!]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed 
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.20 starting (python version = 3.7.4)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.20
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.20
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/jjames/1767252-transflac/review-transflac/results/transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/jjames/1767252-transflac/review-transflac/results/transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Transcode -> Trans code, Trans-code, Transcendent
transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy
transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transcodes -> trans codes, trans-codes, transcendent
transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy
transflac.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/transflac/README.md
transflac.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Transcode -> Trans code, Trans-code, Transcendent
transflac.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy
transflac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transcodes -> trans codes, trans-codes, transcendent
transflac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://bitbucket.org/gbcox/transflac/get/c9f9fb30947a189d02a2b9d900c450eda29d32ec.tar.gz#/transflac-c9f9fb30947a.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 918d7c4df38b6d79584f51e5545399805f92d5d24d747784bcac900fc27e9a65
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 918d7c4df38b6d79584f51e5545399805f92d5d24d747784bcac900fc27e9a65


Requires
--------
transflac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    bash
    config(transflac)
    coreutils
    ffmpeg
    figlet
    flac
    opus-tools
    procps-ng
    rpm
    rsync
    vorbis-tools



Provides
--------
transflac:
    config(transflac)
    transflac



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n transflac -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ruby, Ocaml, Java, Python, fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, C/C++, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

ffmpeg is not a package dependency.  If the user installed from another repository, then it handles.  If
they don't have it installed it works fine.

Ah, nevermind, I see what you were talking about - it's in the spec file.  
That was a mistake on my part.  I'll correct and resubmit.

SPEC URL:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qt2CHrvU_TuQTKoJtabxIV1C4UGwx5Nm/view?usp=sharing
SRPM URL:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Jod5RYV8rFGp1Cnni4axsxxnUvVrNUN/view?usp=sharing
Fedora Account System Username:  gbcox

COPR URL:  https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gbcox/package_reviews/build/1082797/

Thanks for all your recommendations and suggestions.  They have all been implemented.

Regarding:
  %license LICENSE.md
  %{_pkgdocdir}/LICENSE.md

  I don't see the point of packaging that file twice.

for some reason, the %license alone would throw a "not packaged" error.  
I found that  _pkgdocdir alone is sufficient, so I removed the %license.

If you have an idea of what might be happening, let me know.  Otherwise
I'll submit a bug report on it.

Thanks!

I found the issue on %license - it's because licenses are no longer stored in %doc.
I'll resubmit...

SPEC URL:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qt2CHrvU_TuQTKoJtabxIV1C4UGwx5Nm/view?usp=sharing
SRPM URL:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6qFfljqCh_fq-fIad0zIVuY0-FXByly/view?usp=sharing
Fedora Account System Username:  gbcox

COPR URL:  https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gbcox/package_reviews/build/1082932/

All should be resolved now.  Thanks again!

Indeed, all concerns were resolved.  This package is APPROVED.

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

FEDORA-2019-e4e396c6bc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e4e396c6bc

FEDORA-2019-3dc6c14887 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3dc6c14887

FEDORA-2019-eea595139a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-eea595139a

transflac-1.0.0-3.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-2019-3dc6c14887

transflac-1.0.0-3.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-e4e396c6bc

transflac-1.0.0-3.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-eea595139a

FEDORA-2019-9ebbf2f70e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9ebbf2f70e

FEDORA-2019-8e7a59437f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8e7a59437f

FEDORA-2019-53639db3c3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-53639db3c3

transflac-1.0.1-1.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-2019-9ebbf2f70e

transflac-1.0.1-1.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-2019-8e7a59437f

transflac-1.0.1-1.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-2019-53639db3c3

transflac-1.0.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

transflac-1.0.1-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

transflac-1.0.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.