Bug 1878529

rpmlint warning is now fixed.

somehow I couldn't set that this blocks

>Source2:        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tomas-M/iotop/master/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc
Shouldn't this also come from the version-tag, instead of master branch? What if the key is changed in master?

>%install
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't remove the buildroot at start of %install.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

>%files
>/usr/sbin/iotop
>/usr/share/man/man8/iotop.8.gz
1. Don't use hard-coded paths here. Instead, use the appropriate RPM macros as described here:
   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/#_macros_for_paths_set_and_used_by_build_systems
2. Don't assume that man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match
   any compression method (including no compression at all).
   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

Thanks for the suggestions!

Should I regenerate and replace the source rpm? Or provide another link?

Either solution is fine, though you must provide both the updated spec and the rebuilt SRPM.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/iotop/fedora/fedora/iotop-c.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/bbonev/iotop/raw/fedora/fedora/iotop-c-1.12-1.fc32.src.rpm

Update to version 1.14:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/iotop/fedora/fedora/iotop-c.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/bbonev/iotop/raw/fedora/fedora/iotop-c-1.14-1.fc32.src.rpm

Obviously the spec links in previous messages point to the latest one and 1.11 SRPM is no longer valid...

Hello and sorry for taking so long.

There are some minor issues; once these are fixed, the package is good to go.


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

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


===== Issues =====
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
     NOTE: The LICENSE file describes the licensing details, but does not
     contain the actual licence text - that is stored in the COPYING file,
     which is not installed.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
     NOTE: Version 1.15 is now available.


===== 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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
     Note: link to koji scratch build below.
     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54173895
[-]: %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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: iotop-c-1.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          iotop-c-debuginfo-1.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          iotop-c-debugsource-1.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          iotop-c-1.14-1.fc34.src.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: iotop-c-debuginfo-1.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
iotop-c-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Tomas-M/iotop/ <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
iotop-c.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Tomas-M/iotop/ <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
iotop-c-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Tomas-M/iotop/ <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tomas-M/iotop/v1.14/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07
https://github.com/Tomas-M/iotop/releases/download/v1.14/iotop-1.14.tar.xz.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4903e92045b0f18ca86e2668ee3fdb9f60c6b9a228c2e881b6600177b54ab53b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4903e92045b0f18ca86e2668ee3fdb9f60c6b9a228c2e881b6600177b54ab53b
https://github.com/Tomas-M/iotop/releases/download/v1.14/iotop-1.14.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8402a498dc8555e633a31cf7fb747239e46e279c040a5c587709dc757d2d3ca0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8402a498dc8555e633a31cf7fb747239e46e279c040a5c587709dc757d2d3ca0


Requires
--------
iotop-c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libncursesw.so.6()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

iotop-c-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

iotop-c-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
iotop-c:
    iotop-c
    iotop-c(x86-64)

iotop-c-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    iotop-c-debuginfo
    iotop-c-debuginfo(x86-64)

iotop-c-debugsource:
    iotop-c-debugsource
    iotop-c-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 1878529
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Haskell, Perl, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Update to version 1.15

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/iotop/master/fedora/iotop-c.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/bbonev/iotop/raw/fedora/fedora/iotop-c-1.15-1.fc32.src.rpm

Just in case, I did a koji build for rawhide:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54198875

Short list of changes:

- update to the latest released version 1.15
- removed conflict with iotop, renamed binary and man page to iotop-c (as per discussion on devel list)
- install the COPYING file

Thanks for the review, in case I can do a review back, let me know (although I am not if I can do that)

LGTM. Package approved.

I've sponsored you now. Please contact me if you have any questions! Welcome to packaging...

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