Bug 1914678

Found no issues!

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.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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", "Expat License". 5 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/pihhan/fedora/review/1914678-lua-unbound/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: lua-unbound-0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          lua-unbound-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          lua-unbound-debugsource-0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          lua-unbound-0.5-1.fc35.src.rpm
lua-unbound.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunbound -> lib unbound, lib-unbound, unbound
lua-unbound.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunbound -> lib unbound, lib-unbound, unbound
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: lua-unbound-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
lua-unbound.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunbound -> lib unbound, lib-unbound, unbound
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
lua-unbound: /usr/lib64/lua/5.4/lunbound.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://code.zash.se/dl/luaunbound/luaunbound-0.5.tar.gz.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ff353bf4446308e245474c8a84b3d371790047aa2a45c40e28e82030123984fb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff353bf4446308e245474c8a84b3d371790047aa2a45c40e28e82030123984fb
https://code.zash.se/dl/luaunbound/luaunbound-0.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a6564ac1cca6bb350576eb2a5cfa03adb0aafd4f99d6cd491bd8028d046c62a7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6564ac1cca6bb350576eb2a5cfa03adb0aafd4f99d6cd491bd8028d046c62a7


Requires
--------
lua-unbound (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libunbound.so.8()(64bit)
    lua(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

lua-unbound-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lua-unbound-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
lua-unbound:
    lua-unbound
    lua-unbound(x86-64)

lua-unbound-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    lua-unbound-debuginfo
    lua-unbound-debuginfo(x86-64)

lua-unbound-debugsource:
    lua-unbound-debugsource
    lua-unbound-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914678
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, Perl, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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

FEDORA-2021-3e31b812ec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e31b812ec

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-4245c40478 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-4245c40478

FEDORA-2021-ff5e170505 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ff5e170505

FEDORA-2021-9f030446da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f030446da

FEDORA-2021-3e31b812ec 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-2021-3e31b812ec \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e31b812ec

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

FEDORA-2021-ff5e170505 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-ff5e170505 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ff5e170505

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-4245c40478 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-2021-4245c40478

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-74495023f5 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-2021-74495023f5

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

FEDORA-2021-9f030446da 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-2021-9f030446da \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f030446da

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

FEDORA-2021-9f030446da has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-ff5e170505 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-4245c40478 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-2021-74495023f5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-3e31b812ec has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-3e31b812ec has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.