Bug 2207871

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5927208
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2207871-libcanlock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05927208-libcanlock/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated",
     "FSF All Permissive License", "ICU License", "ICU License [generated
     file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated
     file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License",
     "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
     Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention)". 44 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 12 files.
[ ]: 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).
[!]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in canlock
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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 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: libcanlock-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-devel-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          canlock-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-debugsource-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-3.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================================== rpmlint session starts ==============================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp78_v73z5')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits
=============== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.6 s ===============




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================================== rpmlint session starts ==============================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmptjy6qczn')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

=============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s ===============





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 5

libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://micha.freeshell.org/libcanlock/src/libcanlock-3.3.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a709f59d6611031c293b483cfa0be6c37d6c68220cc94aee44e4a9eabf76988d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a709f59d6611031c293b483cfa0be6c37d6c68220cc94aee44e4a9eabf76988d


Requires
--------
libcanlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcanlock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libcanlock(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)

canlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcanlock-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libcanlock-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libcanlock:
    libcanlock
    libcanlock(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)

libcanlock-devel:
    libcanlock-devel
    libcanlock-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libcanlock-3)
    pkgconfig(libcanlock-hp-3)

canlock:
    canlock
    canlock(x86-64)

libcanlock-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcanlock-debuginfo
    libcanlock-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3.0.3-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3.1.0-3.3.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libcanlock-debugsource:
    libcanlock-debugsource
    libcanlock-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2207871
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, Python, Ruby, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a)  ICU license also seems to be used
b) COPYING file does not contain license text, but a list of types of license used
c) There is a COPYING file in /libcanlock-3.3.0/hp that should also be packaged, though most source files have
license information.
d) Please add a license breakdown to the spec
e) Some of the license are listed as like other types of license. They may need to get SPDX identifiers
as separate licenses

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
[...]
> Comments:
> a) ICU license also seems to be used

Indeed. The sources call it MIT-like, but it's ICU.

> b) COPYING file does not contain license text, but a list of types of
> license used

I will contact upstream and ask them to provide license texts, too.

> c) There is a COPYING file in /libcanlock-3.3.0/hp that should also be
> packaged, though most source files have license information.

Added.

> d) Please add a license breakdown to the spec

Done.

> e) Some of the license are listed as like other types of license. They may
> need to get SPDX identifiers as separate licenses

What the source code calls "MIT-like" is ICU (100% template match).

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock-3.3.0-2.fc40.src.rpm

* Mon Jan 01 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 3.3.0-2
- Address review comments

Created attachment 2006748 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5927208 to 6843494

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6843494
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2207871-libcanlock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06843494-libcanlock/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause and ICU'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libcanlock/libcanlock-3.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm

* Wed Dec 04 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 3.3.1-1
- update to 3.3.1

Benson, do you intend to finish reviewing this? If not, I'll start looking for another reviewer.

Created attachment 2061222 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6843494 to 8341670

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8341670
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2207871-libcanlock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08341670-libcanlock/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Another day. Thanks for the reminder, sorry for the delay.

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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "BSD 3-Clause License and/or ICU License", "Unknown or
     generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "ICU License", "ICU License
     [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
     v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD
     3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License
     (with License Retention)". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[!]: 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 30568 bytes in 12 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in canlock
[ ]: 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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libcanlock-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-devel-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          canlock-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-debugsource-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          libcanlock-3.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
======================================== rpmlint session starts =======================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsh1a6la_')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mhp', '%description -l en_US mhp -> mph, mp, hp')
canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('hfp', '%description -l en_US hfp -> hf, hp, hep')
libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits
== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 47 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 8.1 s ==




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
======================================== rpmlint session starts =======================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpajcu1ut3')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s ==





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 5

canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mhp', '%description -l en_US mhp -> mph, mp, hp')
canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('hfp', '%description -l en_US hfp -> hf, hp, hep')
libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 44 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 7.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://micha.freeshell.org/libcanlock/src/libcanlock-3.3.1.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5acd6d59e1fdf2a8507887137cf7f3e862fec0c21cc079bba7068abf03e881d9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5acd6d59e1fdf2a8507887137cf7f3e862fec0c21cc079bba7068abf03e881d9


Requires
--------
libcanlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcanlock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libcanlock(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)

canlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcanlock-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libcanlock-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libcanlock:
    libcanlock
    libcanlock(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3()(64bit)

libcanlock-devel:
    libcanlock-devel
    libcanlock-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libcanlock-3)
    pkgconfig(libcanlock-hp-3)

canlock:
    canlock
    canlock(x86-64)

libcanlock-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcanlock-debuginfo
    libcanlock-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libcanlock-hp.so.3.0.3-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libcanlock.so.3.1.0-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libcanlock-debugsource:
    libcanlock-debugsource
    libcanlock-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/srpm/libcanlock.spec 2024-12-05 06:25:20.893963968 +0300
+++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/srpm-unpacked/libcanlock.spec 2024-12-04 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           libcanlock
 Version:        3.3.1
@@ -117,3 +127,12 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Dec 04 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 3.3.1-1
+- update to 3.3.1
+
+* Mon Jan 01 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 3.3.0-2
+- Address review comments
+
+* Mon Jan 01 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 3.3.0-1
+- initial build
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2207871
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ocaml, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) canlock package should probably explicitly require the main package to ensure license files
are included. In principl it will be installed because of the library dependency, but it will
not cause any problems to explicitly require the main library package, and would prevent
license problems should there be some change in the dependencies.
b) Koji build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126538998
c) Approved.  Please fix (a) on import or explain why it should not be fixed.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libcanlock

Done, thanks for the review.

FEDORA-2024-701afecc47 (libcanlock-3.3.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-701afecc47

FEDORA-2024-701afecc47 (libcanlock-3.3.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.