Bug 1901123

Updating the url to the exact file instead of the the repository.

Spec URL: https://github.com/rkothiya/rpm/blob/main/glusterfs-selinux.spec 

SRPM URL: https://github.com/rkothiya/rpm/blob/main/glusterfs-selinux-0.1.0-2.fc32.src.rpm

The documentation on selinux policy start by requesting to contact SELinux maintainers:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/IndependentPolicy#Agreement_workflow

I didn't find a mail regarding gluster in the archive (but only looked for the last 4 months). Can you confirm this is ok with them ?

Then on the spec file:
- I do not understand the buildRequires on git, or the one on "pkgconfig(systemd)", can you explain why they are here ?

- Requires:       selinux-policy-targeted   , this should not hardcode targeted, as there is a existing variable

- the license is not provided with %license in the %files section

- the tarball do not seems to have a url or anything, and the roject do not have a tag (on https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-selinux )

- the changelog is incorrect, as there is the same release for 2 differents version

That's kinda blocking so far :/

Following pull request removes the dependency package which are not required. 
https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-selinux/pull/11

Updated spec file and src rpms according to the changes suggested in the above review comments : 

Spec URL: https://github.com/rkothiya/rpm/blob/main/glusterfs-selinux.spec

SRPM URL: https://github.com/rkothiya/rpm/blob/main/glusterfs-selinux-0.1.1-4.fc32.src.rpm

>I didn't find a mail regarding gluster in the archive (but only looked for the last 4 months). Can you confirm this is ok with them ?
Yes I have informed them and it is ok with them.

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /tmp/t/review-glusterfs-
     selinux/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted,
     /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200,
     /var/lib/selinux/targeted
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/selinux/packages/targeted,
     /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200
[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]: 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 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: glusterfs-selinux-0.1.1-4.fc33.noarch.rpm
          glusterfs-selinux-0.1.1-4.fc33.src.rpm
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200/glusterd 0
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre cp
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
glusterfs-selinux.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 6)
glusterfs-selinux.src: W: invalid-url Source0: glusterfs-selinux-0.1.1.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: read-error [Errno 21] Is a directory: '/var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200/glusterd'
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/modules/200/glusterd 0
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre cp
glusterfs-selinux.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
glusterfs-selinux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libselinux-utils
    policycoreutils
    policycoreutils-python-utils
    selinux-policy
    selinux-policy-base
    selinux-policy-targeted



Provides
--------
glusterfs-selinux:
    glusterfs-selinux



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n glusterfs-selinux -m fedora-33-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-33-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

The package is good to be uploaded. 

I sponsored you in the packager group, but I think the rest is up to you (from what i remember of the process, I am a bit rusty :/ ).

The doc for the upload is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join , do not hesitate to ask if you have any question.

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

FEDORA-2021-a388cfcf08 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a388cfcf08

FEDORA-2021-99feed1644 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-99feed1644

FEDORA-2021-a388cfcf08 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a388cfcf08 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a388cfcf08

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

FEDORA-2021-99feed1644 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-99feed1644 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-99feed1644

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

FEDORA-2021-99feed1644 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-a388cfcf08 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.