Bug 1904172

Taking this review. Some initial notes:

- the BuildRequires on systemd is probably overkill. you can use systemd-rpm-macros (for %{_unitdir}) and `mkdir -p` it in %install before copying a file there. At runtime you can assume systemd is installed
- Other BRs are fine (git is used for %autosetup -S git)
- installing files do not preserve permissions, both the additional files you install as well as the ones by `make install`
  - you're not using %make_install, but upstream Makefile doesn't support DESTDIR and INSTALL which the macro assumes. if you submit a patch to upstream, it might be worth making it support the variables %make_install uses

These are not blockers though, but consider making the first change before importing your package, it will speed up the build a bit by pulling in less dependencies.

Must-fixes:

Directory ownership needs fixing:
- missing %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
- need to Requires: systemd for ownership of %{_unitdir}

Registering your unit files
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd for registering and unregistering your systemd service during installation and uninstallation

Compiler flags not used by Makefile
You'll have to patch the Makefile to support passing %{optflags}; it currently hardcodes the flags used.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
  systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
  Note: Systemd service file(s) in endlessh
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets


===== 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]: 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", "the Unlicense", "*No copyright* the
     Unlicense". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1904172-endlessh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /etc/endlessh
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
     /etc/endlessh, /usr/lib/systemd
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
     missing systemd scriptlets, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd
[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 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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
     Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56736774
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: 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:
[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: endlessh-1.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          endlessh-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          endlessh-debugsource-1.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          endlessh-1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
endlessh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tarpit -> tar pit, tar-pit, tarp it
endlessh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tarpit -> tar pit, tar-pit, tarp it
endlessh.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tarpit -> tar pit, tar-pit, tarp it
endlessh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tarpit -> tar pit, tar-pit, tarp it
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: endlessh-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
endlessh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tarpit -> tar pit, tar-pit, tarp it
endlessh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tarpit -> tar pit, tar-pit, tarp it
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/skeeto/endlessh/archive/1.1/endlessh-1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 786cea9e2c8e0a37d3d4ecd984ca4a0ae0b2d6e2b8da37e3cdbb9d49ccdecbf0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 786cea9e2c8e0a37d3d4ecd984ca4a0ae0b2d6e2b8da37e3cdbb9d49ccdecbf0


Requires
--------
endlessh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(endlessh)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

endlessh-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

endlessh-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
endlessh:
    config(endlessh)
    endlessh
    endlessh(x86-64)

endlessh-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    endlessh-debuginfo
    endlessh-debuginfo(x86-64)

endlessh-debugsource:
    endlessh-debugsource
    endlessh-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1904172
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, R, fonts, Perl, Python, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the review Michel Alexandre, I learned new things here.

Updated spec and srpm:

Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/endlessh.spec
SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/endlessh-1.1-2.fc33.src.rpm

- Added missing %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
- Changed systemd to Req and added BR to systemd-rpm-macros
- Registered systemd unit
- Patched Makefile with sed during %install to use %{optflags}
- Change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} to use one style

Looks fine! APPROVED

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

FEDORA-2020-e034e4c49a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e034e4c49a

FEDORA-2020-4b377f8a28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4b377f8a28

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-078d93890e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-078d93890e

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ddeb1f2063 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ddeb1f2063

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-078d93890e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-078d93890e

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ddeb1f2063 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ddeb1f2063

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

FEDORA-2020-4b377f8a28 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-4b377f8a28 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4b377f8a28

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

FEDORA-2020-e034e4c49a 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-2020-e034e4c49a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e034e4c49a

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

FEDORA-2020-e034e4c49a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-4b377f8a28 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-078d93890e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ddeb1f2063 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.