Bug 1816627

When I install the package, I would expect help to be available. Please try

:help rhubarb.txt

I think you will need to explicitly copy the doc file into vimfiles_root and
then call helptags. For inspiration, I would look into vim-fugitive.spec.
They do it this way:

%install
install -D -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive.txt %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc/fugitive.txt

%postun
> %{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags
vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
%endif


Otherwise, the package looks good to me.

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

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



===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /tmp/1816627-vim-rhubarb/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:
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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: vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.fc33.noarch.rpm
          vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.fc33.src.rpm
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gbrowse -> Browse, G browse, Drowse
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omni -> omnibus
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compl -> comp, compel, comply
vim-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gbrowse -> Browse, G browse, Drowse
vim-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omni -> omnibus
vim-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compl -> comp, compel, comply
vim-rhubarb.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 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_US.utf8"
    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_US.utf8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gbrowse -> Browse, G browse, Drowse
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omni -> omnibus
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compl -> comp, compel, comply
vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/tpope/vim-rhubarb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tpope/vim-rhubarb/archive/5130596a65330a4e8523d3ac1582f6c31ea6bc63/vim-rhubarb-5130596a65330a4e8523d3ac1582f6c31ea6bc63.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a5af9da05e3a65c530523edf7d10f090bad265fed4fe98c8892212e5a8f7919a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5af9da05e3a65c530523edf7d10f090bad265fed4fe98c8892212e5a8f7919a


Requires
--------
vim-rhubarb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    vim-common
    vim-fugitive



Provides
--------
vim-rhubarb:
    vim-rhubarb



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1816627
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Python, R, Haskell, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

One more thing. I believe the release version is not optimal. Please see 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

Currently, the release is 1.git513059.fc30 but the documentation suggests this instead

YYYYMMDD.<revision>
YYYYMMDD<scm><revision>

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/praiskup/vim-rhubarb-rpm/master/vim-rhubarb.spec
SRPM URL: http://praiskup.fedorapeople.org/vim-rhubarb-0-2.20191014git513059.src.rpm

> I think you will need to explicitly copy the doc file into vimfiles_root and

Good idea, done.

> then call helptags.

Vim has file triggers, and calls it itself.  I don't plan to maintain this
in el7.

> I believe the release version is not optimal

Thanks, I was outdated and I didn't know this rule!  Fixed.

> Vim has file triggers, and calls it itself.

True, it works even without the %postun

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

AFAIK I am supposed to close this now.

FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5063da2009

FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5063da2009

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.