Bug 1988722

I will take this review.

This package is APPROVED.  I agree that your choice of package name is probably the best one available.  I do have two minor nitpicks, but they are not blocking issues:

- Note the description-line-too-long complaint from rpmlint, due to a macro on
  line 53 of the spec file.

- %cmake already invokes %set_build_flags, so there is no need for you to
  invoke it manually (see /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.cmake).  It doesn't
  hurt, though.

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

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

===== 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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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: gulrak-filesystem-devel-1.5.8-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          gulrak-filesystem-1.5.8-1.fc36.src.rpm
gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS
gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iOS -> OS, SOS, DOS
gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging
gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The gulrak-filesystem-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing
gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS
gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iOS -> OS, SOS, DOS
gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging
gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg
gulrak-filesystem.src:90: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
gulrak-filesystem.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/gulrak/filesystem/pull/133.patch
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rpmlint: 2.0.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The gulrak-filesystem-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing
================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s =================



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gulrak/filesystem/archive/v1.5.8/filesystem-1.5.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 726f8ccb2ec844f4c66cc4b572369497327df31b86c04cefad6b311964107139
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 726f8ccb2ec844f4c66cc4b572369497327df31b86c04cefad6b311964107139


Requires
--------
gulrak-filesystem-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)



Provides
--------
gulrak-filesystem-devel:
    cmake(ghc_filesystem)
    gulrak-filesystem-devel
    gulrak-filesystem-devel(x86-64)
    gulrak-filesystem-static



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1988722 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, Java, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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

Thanks for the review!

> - Note the description-line-too-long complaint from rpmlint, due to a macro on
>   line 53 of the spec file.

I will fix this on import.

> - %cmake already invokes %set_build_flags, so there is no need for you to
>   invoke it manually (see /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.cmake).  It doesn't
>   hurt, though.

I will fix this, too. It’s left over from where I was adding some build flags for testing during initial packaging work. I removed the extra flags, but missed the %set_build_flags.

FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f

FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97

FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 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-2021-75ce88bc97

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

FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f 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-f9e8d9829f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.