Bug 1970649

LGTM, I'll have to remember the symlink thing

Packqge approved.



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", "Expat License", "ISC License", "*No
     copyright* Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Expat
     License [generated file]", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
     "Apache License 2.0". 5515 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fkill-cli/review-fkill-
     cli/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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 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]: 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: fkill-cli-6.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          fkill-cli-6.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
fkill-cli.noarch: W: invalid-license 0BSD
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-arrify)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-execa)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-get-stream)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-hosted-git-info)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-human-signals)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-map-obj)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-normalize-package-data)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-ps-list)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-semver)
fkill-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-type-fest)
fkill-cli.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
fkill-cli.src: W: invalid-license 0BSD
fkill-cli.src: W: strange-permission check-null-licenses 755
fkill-cli.src: W: no-%build-section
fkill-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source3: fkill-cli-6.1.0-nm-dev.tgz
fkill-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source2: fkill-cli-6.1.0-nm-prod.tgz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 7 warnings.

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

Thanks for the review!

FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ff490de793

FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 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-ff490de793 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ff490de793

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

FEDORA-2021-ff490de793 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.