Bug 1801451 (multimarkdown)

 - Fix the obsolete FSF address and send the patch upstream:

multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-envelope.sty
multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-letterhead.sty

 - Please add a comment explaining the license breakdown


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

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


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "zlib/libpng license Expat License",
     "zlib/libpng license", "Expat License", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD
     3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
     incorrect FSF address)". 551 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/multimarkdown/review-
     multimarkdown/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 624640 bytes in 10 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 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]: 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.
[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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2027520 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: multimarkdown-6.5.1-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          multimarkdown-debuginfo-6.5.1-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          multimarkdown-debugsource-6.5.1-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          multimarkdown-6.5.1-3.fc33.src.rpm
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ese -> ESE, see, es
multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-envelope.sty
multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-letterhead.sty
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2all
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2epub
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2fodt
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2odt
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2opml
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2pdf
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmd2tex
multimarkdown.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary multimarkdown
multimarkdown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede
multimarkdown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ese -> ESE, see, es
multimarkdown.src:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(CuTest)
multimarkdown.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(argtable3)
multimarkdown.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(miniz)
multimarkdown.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(uthash)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings.

Hello !

Thank you for taking my review request, and sorry for the late answer (was pretty overwhelmed yesterday). Also, I was about to do ask for a review swap for this package with other maintainers, so if you have some packages I can review, don't hesitate (especially since you also sponsored me few months ago).

So, I've updated the spec file (https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown.spec), and added a patch as you requested (https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/fsf-address.patch) !

Here's the new SRPM : https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.fc31.src.rpm !

And I've submitted a koji scratch build, but koji seems to have crashed (?), but normally since I was interrupted at a safe moment it should be fine (?). Here's the link : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42386998 .

Soo... I forgot to add git to the build requirements, updated everything, it is fine now. That shows that even with a seemingly harmless changes, a koji build is always a good idea :D !

Here's the new koji build : https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42388021 !

 - Prefer git-core instead of the full git

Package approved.

>  - Prefer git-core instead of the full git

Thank you :) ! I'll make sure to change that before submitting it.

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

FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc

FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134

FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287

multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.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-2020-b6d95d0287

multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.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-bf81f16134

multimarkdown-6.5.1-4.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-b7439ebdbc

FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.