Bug 2301387

So I'm a little confused, the new packagers guide says I should solicit a sponsor once this review request is "approved", but it says here that there's a blocker for me needing a sponsor. Does that mean this request is approved? Should I be looking for someone to sponsor me now?

You will need a sponsor to join the package maintainers group, so regardless of the progress of this review, you should look for one. To help your case you may perform a couple reviews yourself to show your sponsor that you have a good understanding of RPM packaging and Fedora packaging guidelines. Since you can't approve packages yet, make sure to manage expectations for the person who submitted a package if you engage in a review, for example starting with "This is just an informal review since I am looking for a sponsor".

Regarding this review request, I was originally planning to perform a review but Benson Muite assigned the ticket to himself first, so I only CC'd myself to be informed of progress on this ticket.

I'm not sure why Benson did not follow up soon after taking the ticket, and didn't even announce his intention to review it. I'm wondering whether he only meant to add the fedora-review? flag and the sponsor ticket blocker and accidentally added himself as a reviewer. If that is the case, I unfortunately already spent the spare time I could have dedicated to this review request. You can try the devel mailing list to find a reviewer and a sponsor.

Maybe try contacting Benson first.

(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #2)
> You will need a sponsor to join the package maintainers group, so regardless
> of the progress of this review, you should look for one. To help your case
> you may perform a couple reviews yourself to show your sponsor that you have
> a good understanding of RPM packaging and Fedora packaging guidelines. Since
> you can't approve packages yet, make sure to manage expectations for the
> person who submitted a package if you engage in a review, for example
> starting with "This is just an informal review since I am looking for a
> sponsor".

Thanks for the suggestion, I did not consider doing this before but it's a good idea. Nonetheless I have a decently long list of packages I would like to maintain, would it be inadvisable to file more review requests before this first one is approved and I have a sponsor?

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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/kloak/2301387-kloak/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in kloak
[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

===== 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 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: kloak-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          kloak-debuginfo-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          kloak-debugsource-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          kloak-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.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/tmp2s8m_36r')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 23 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 4.7 s ===================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: kloak-debuginfo-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.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/tmpdbgk109h')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s ===================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
============================ 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: 3

kloak.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/kloak /lib64/libm.so.6
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 4.9 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/vmonaco/kloak/archive/9cbdf4484da19eb09653356e59ce42c37cecb523/kloak-9cbdf4484da19eb09653356e59ce42c37cecb523.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : edaba1dc8ebfa265c2e503a88af542eecc8650304f21ca4e9ad4e1396020ff45
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : edaba1dc8ebfa265c2e503a88af542eecc8650304f21ca4e9ad4e1396020ff45


Requires
--------
kloak (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libevdev.so.2()(64bit)
    libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libsodium.so.26()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd

kloak-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

kloak-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
kloak:
    kloak
    kloak(x86-64)

kloak-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    kloak-debuginfo
    kloak-debuginfo(x86-64)

kloak-debugsource:
    kloak-debugsource
    kloak-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2301387
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Can review, but cannot sponsor.
Information on getting sponsored:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/

A list of possible sponsors:
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/

If you have many packages, you will find it helpful to also review other
peoples packages in exchange for a review of your packages.
b) Builds on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124309779
c) As you are using %autorelease consider also using %autochangelog
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
Otherwise you may also want to manage the release field manually
d) Happy to approve once point c is resolved.

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4)
> 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [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.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have
>      unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/kloak/2301387-kloak/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [ ]: 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.
> [x]: 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.
> [ ]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
>      systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
>      Note: Systemd service file(s) in kloak
> [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
> 
> ===== 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.
> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.
> [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> [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 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: kloak-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
>           kloak-debuginfo-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
>           kloak-debugsource-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
>           kloak-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.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/tmp2s8m_36r')]
> checks: 32, packages: 4
> 
> kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization
> -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
> kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US
> biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
> kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US)
> anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
> kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US
> biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
> ================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings,
> 23 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 4.7 s ===================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (debuginfo)
> -------------------
> Checking: kloak-debuginfo-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.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/tmpdbgk109h')]
> checks: 32, packages: 1
> 
> ================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings,
> 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s ===================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No
> such file or directory
> /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No
> such file or directory
> /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No
> such file or directory
> ============================ 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: 3
> 
> kloak.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/kloak
> /lib64/libm.so.6
> kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US)
> anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
> kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US
> biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
>  3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 2
> badness; has taken 4.9 s 
> 
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/vmonaco/kloak/archive/
> 9cbdf4484da19eb09653356e59ce42c37cecb523/kloak-
> 9cbdf4484da19eb09653356e59ce42c37cecb523.tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> edaba1dc8ebfa265c2e503a88af542eecc8650304f21ca4e9ad4e1396020ff45
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> edaba1dc8ebfa265c2e503a88af542eecc8650304f21ca4e9ad4e1396020ff45
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> kloak (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     /bin/sh
>     libc.so.6()(64bit)
>     libevdev.so.2()(64bit)
>     libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit)
>     libm.so.6()(64bit)
>     libsodium.so.26()(64bit)
>     rtld(GNU_HASH)
>     systemd
> 
> kloak-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> 
> kloak-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> kloak:
>     kloak
>     kloak(x86-64)
> 
> kloak-debuginfo:
>     debuginfo(build-id)
>     kloak-debuginfo
>     kloak-debuginfo(x86-64)
> 
> kloak-debugsource:
>     kloak-debugsource
>     kloak-debugsource(x86-64)
> 
> 
> 
> Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2301387
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
> Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell,
> fonts
> Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> 
> Comments:
> a) Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Can review, but cannot sponsor.
> Information on getting sponsored:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/
> How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/
> 
> A list of possible sponsors:
> https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/
> 
> If you have many packages, you will find it helpful to also review other
> peoples packages in exchange for a review of your packages.
> b) Builds on all architectures:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124309779
> c) As you are using %autorelease consider also using %autochangelog
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
> Otherwise you may also want to manage the release field manually
> d) Happy to approve once point c is resolved.

The review is appreciated, I have an updated spec which is much better but it's also for a fork and not the original project. The original maintainer no longer maintains kloak for unknown reasons, so I've pivoted to packaging the Whonix fork here: https://github.com/Whonix/kloak. I hope that's okay? I will update everything here soon with the new spec and srpm.

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4)

I've updated my original comment with new updated links. Not much has changed other than fixing the changelog to %autochangelog and updating to the Whonix fork.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8472802
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2301387-kloak/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08472802-kloak/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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /FedoraPackaging/reviews/kloak/2301387-kloak/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in kloak
[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 9658 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: %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 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: kloak-0.3.6-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          kloak-0.3.6-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppnd7vh_9')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: kloak-debuginfo-0.3.6-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5harpqzq')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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: 2

kloak.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/kloak /lib64/libm.so.6
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization')
kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 17 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Whonix/kloak/archive/0.3.6-1/kloak-0.3.6-1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d3b0b6d03d48862df7b07cf7e585e6776779ec78d83a211a95469de6e0e27f89
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3b0b6d03d48862df7b07cf7e585e6776779ec78d83a211a95469de6e0e27f89


Requires
--------
kloak (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libevdev.so.2()(64bit)
    libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libsodium.so.26()(64bit)
    libubsan.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd
    systemd-udev



Provides
--------
kloak:
    kloak
    kloak(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2301387
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Thanks. Can you update to latest release 0.3.9
b) Can now sponsor. To get sponsored, please do a few informal reviews and link them here.