Bug 1919655

Added script to audit for null license fields in bundled dependencies; see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920223.

New Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/fedora-rpm/-/raw/13e26616321f61f1f2667e7c56b5fd79cc05b2bb/topojson-client.spec
New SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8270/61398270/topojson-client-3.1.0-2.fc34.src.rpm

New Koji build for F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61398237

It appears gitlab is serving a 403 error to the fedora-review tool even though the spec URL is otherwise good, perhaps by blocking user-agents not on a whitelist. This is obnoxious. The following URL should work for everyone: https://music.fedorapeople.org/topojson-client.spec

 - Please don't use Koji to link to SRPM packages as they have a limited duration. Current SRPM is 404. Please reupload it.

Thanks, updated.

Same spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/topojson-client.spec
New SRPM URL:  https://music.fedorapeople.org/topojson-client-3.1.0-2.fc33.src.rpm

 - Why are node_modules symbolic links to node_modules_prod? Why not put them directly at node_modules?

 - Install the main package's license with %license in %files

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: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 51
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/topojson-client/review-topojson-
     client/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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 20480 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 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 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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: topojson-client-3.1.0-2.fc35.noarch.rpm
          topojson-client-3.1.0-2.fc35.src.rpm
topojson-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quantize -> antiquate
topojson-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geoPath -> homeopath
topojson-client.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
topojson-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quantize -> antiquate
topojson-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geoPath -> homeopath
topojson-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US topomerge -> topographer
topojson-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US topoquantize -> quantitative
topojson-client.src: W: strange-permission check-null-licenses 755
topojson-client.src: W: invalid-url Source3: topojson-client-3.1.0-nm-dev.tgz
topojson-client.src: W: invalid-url Source2: topojson-client-3.1.0-nm-prod.tgz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #7)
>  - Install the main package's license with %license in %files

Disregard this.

Package approved.

Thanks for the review.

Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32925

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

FEDORA-2021-0b5330631c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0b5330631c

FEDORA-2021-0b5330631c 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-2021-0b5330631c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0b5330631c

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

FEDORA-2021-0b5330631c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.