Bug 2325154

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8240710
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2325154-cproc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08240710-cproc/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.

I'll review it

* I could not find anything licensed under MIT or Unlicense. Please review license tag and provide licensing breakdown.
* Could you please comment patch' origin (taken from GitHub's PR I guess?)

Apart from this I cannot find anything so here is my formal 

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

^^^ false positive

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[!]: 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 does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No need to separate development files 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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Unfortunately the package is designed for a few hardware architectures.
[-]: No large documentation 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]: 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:
[x]: 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (git-snapshot).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify.
[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 autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.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/tmppx_w3p48')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('mcpp', '%description -l en_US mcpp -> PCMCIA')
cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('gcc', '%description -l en_US gcc -> GCC, cc')
cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('binutils', '%description -l en_US binutils -> bilinguals')
cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('lacc', '%description -l en_US lacc -> lac, lace, lacy')
cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('scc', '%description -l en_US scc -> cc, sec, sci')
cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mcpp', '%description -l en_US mcpp -> PCMCIA')
cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gcc', '%description -l en_US gcc -> GCC, cc')
cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('binutils', '%description -l en_US binutils -> bilinguals')
cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lacc', '%description -l en_US lacc -> lac, lace, lacy')
cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scc', '%description -l en_US scc -> cc, sec, sci')
cproc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cproc-qbe
cproc.spec:50: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://git.sr.ht/~mcf/cproc//archive/f66a661359a39e10af01508ad02429517b8460e3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0998a6bfac3c1f1719151fb9e772a4a6a90c775c1332d0b02dcbadeca31e5b9b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0998a6bfac3c1f1719151fb9e772a4a6a90c775c1332d0b02dcbadeca31e5b9b


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



Provides
--------
cproc:
    cproc
    cproc(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2325154
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Perl, fonts, Python, Ocaml, R, Java, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thanks.
* I could not find anything licensed under MIT or Unlicense. Please review license tag and provide licensing breakdown.
Done.
* Could you please comment patch' origin (taken from GitHub's PR I guess?)
Done.

Updated:

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/cproc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08294758-cproc/cproc.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/cproc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08294758-cproc/cproc-0.0%5E20240428.f66a6613-1.fc42.src.rpm

This package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

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

Thanks for the review.

FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9

FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b

FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9

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

FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b

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

FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.