Bug 2376871

Approved.

Regarding: [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

The ExcludeArch: %{ix86} is a valid and encouraged practice for noarch leaf 
packages under the "EncourageI686LeafRemoval" policy. The package maintainer has 
clearly indicated their intent to exclude i686, and this action is aligned with Fedora's current direction.
The review statement "Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag" 
is likely just a general observation that doesn't override the maintainer's valid 
and policy-supported decision to include the tag. 
It's not saying "this package must not have ExcludeArch."

Regarding: Incorrect FSF Adress: In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. 
This is the only requirement with respect to this error.

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

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



===== MUST items =====

Generic:In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only requirement with respect to this error.
[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", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 33 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gbcox/fedreview/2376871-gap-pkg-sotgrps/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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).In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only requirement with respect to this error.
[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.
[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.In all cases, upstream should be informed about this.  This is the only requirement with respect to this error.
[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.In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only requirement with respect to this error.
[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 4136 bytes in 2 files.
[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).
[?]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gap-pkg-sotgrps-1.3-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc-1.3-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-sotgrps-1.3-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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/tmplexj8zg9')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized smallantimagmas documentation
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('smallantimagmas', 'Summary(en_US) smallantimagmas -> phantasmagorical')
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-sotgrps.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-sotgrps/LICENSE
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 12 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized smallantimagmas documentation
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('smallantimagmas', 'Summary(en_US) smallantimagmas -> phantasmagorical')
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-sotgrps.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-sotgrps/LICENSE
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/sotgrps/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gap-packages/sotgrps/archive/v1.3/sotgrps-1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2229d10bf599dd673a20359430a619ed6ac7bdb0d85bea02e8a6162512054df1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2229d10bf599dd673a20359430a619ed6ac7bdb0d85bea02e8a6162512054df1


Requires
--------
gap-pkg-sotgrps (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-core

gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-online-help
    gap-pkg-sotgrps



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-sotgrps:
    gap-pkg-sotgrps

gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc:
    gap-pkg-sotgrps-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2376871
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Python, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you for the review!  I will let upstream know about the FSF address.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-sotgrps

FEDORA-2025-efae210d29 (gap-pkg-sotgrps-1.3-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-efae210d29

FEDORA-2025-efae210d29 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-efae210d29 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-efae210d29

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

FEDORA-2025-efae210d29 (gap-pkg-sotgrps-1.3-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.