Bug 1953741

Looks very good. A few nitpicks---not sure if this should be noarch?

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
^
Not sure what this is referring to.

- The package has the standard %install section.
  Note: Package doesn't have the standard removal of *.o and *.so.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/R/
^
it does, false positive

- not a blocker: maybe this is a more user friendly URL to use for the package? https://peter.solymos.org/pbapply/

- should this package be noarch? I can't find any info to suggest either way, but you're also disabling debuginfo which suggests it could be?

- cosmetic: you can use the %autosetup macro (guidelines could be updated)

- cosmetic: you can use Version: %{ver}.%{packagerel}. It just saves you from changing two lines manually.

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
     reviews/1953741-R-pbapply/licensecheck.txt
[-]: %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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
^
Debuginfo is disabled---please check this (related to arch of package too).

[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]: 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

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: Package requires R-core.

===== 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.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil}
[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.

R:
[x]: The %check macro is present
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
     Note: Latest upstream version is 1.4.3, packaged version is 1.4.3

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

Generic:
[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: R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc35.src.rpm
R-pbapply.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored
R-pbapply.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
R-pbapply.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
R-pbapply.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored
R-pbapply.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/pbapply_1.4-3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8fe6287535be766b5a688810e2cc1ca4e668ac6b42b6e832473fe5701133eb21
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fe6287535be766b5a688810e2cc1ca4e668ac6b42b6e832473fe5701133eb21


Requires
--------
R-pbapply (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    R(ABI)
    R(parallel)
    R-core



Provides
--------
R-pbapply:
    R(pbapply)
    R-pbapply
    R-pbapply(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1953741
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: R, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Hi Ankur,

Thank you very much for your quick response and great comments. As a matter of fact, I switched to the noarch. It builds smoother. Debuginfo does not need to be
disabled now.

I am attaching scratch build for f34 (some dependencies are broken in f35 :( ):

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66783023

New files are online:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pbapply/main/R-pbapply.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pbapply/raw/main/R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc33.src.rpm

Looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX

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

FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3770833f12

FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5

FEDORA-2021-e377318157 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-e377318157 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e377318157

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

FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5 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-a8e741e2d5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5

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

FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 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-2021-3770833f12 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3770833f12

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

FEDORA-2021-e377318157 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.