Bug 2413094

> Source0:       %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> Patch1: ufs-utils-fix-build.patch

Fix alignment of argument

> BuildRequires: make
> BuildRequires: gcc

Sort lines

> %install
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}
> install -p ufs-utils %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}

Can be one line:

install -D -p -m0755 ufs-utils %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/ufs-utils

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

 No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2
----------------------------------------------------
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/README.md
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_arpmb.c

BSD 3-Clause Clear License and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_emon.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_emon.h

BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/hmac_sha2.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/hmac_sha2.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/sha2.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/sha2.h

GNU General Public License, Version 2
-------------------------------------
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/COPYING
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/Makefile
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ioctl.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/options.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/options.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/scsi_bsg_util.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/scsi_bsg_util.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_cmds.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_cmds.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_err_hist.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_err_hist.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_ffu.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_ffu.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_hmr.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_hmr.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_rpmb.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_rpmb.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_vendor.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/ufs_vendor.h
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/unipro.c
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/unipro.h

Unknown or generated
--------------------
ufs-utils-7.14.12-build/ufs-utils-7.14.12/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

[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.
[x]: 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 does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 3156 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/SanDisk-Open-
     Source/ufs-utils/archive/7.14.12/ufs-utils-7.14.12.tar.gz
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
     Working url:
       https://github.com/SanDisk-Open-Source/ufs-utils/archive/refs/tags/v7.14.12.tar.gz
[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).
[x]: 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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
    publishes signatures.
[x]: 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]: 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: 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: ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmps4h_i_aj')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

ufs-utils.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING
ufs-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ufs-utils
ufs-utils.spec: W: no-%check-section
ufs-utils.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0
ufs-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0
ufs-utils.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ufs-utils-debuginfo-7.14.12-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpakblnshe')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

ufs-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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

ufs-utils.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING
ufs-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ufs-utils
ufs-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0
ufs-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0
ufs-utils.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ufs-utils/COPYING
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

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

Provides
--------
ufs-utils:
    ufs-utils
    ufs-utils(x86-64)

 Summary:
 =======
  - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
    Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'.
    See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
    See above.
  - Source url seems incorrect.
  - COPYING file should have mode 0644 and fix invalid fsf address

>   - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
>     Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'.
>     See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
>     See above.
>   - Source url seems incorrect.
>   - COPYING file should have mode 0644 and fix invalid fsf address

Updated except the address, I've filed a ticket upstream for the project to do that (https://github.com/SanDisk-Open-Source/ufs-utils/issues/80).

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils-7.14.12-2.fc43.src.rpm

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ufs-utils-7.14.12-2.fc43.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
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.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9787002
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2413094-ufs-utils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09787002-ufs-utils/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.

Thanks for quick reply,

 package is APPROVED.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ufs-utils

(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #7)
> Thanks for quick reply,

Thanks for the review.

FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc (ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc

FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc

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

FEDORA-2025-4ddcd37cdc (ufs-utils-7.14.12-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.