Bug 2544168

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

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

C/C++:
[ ]: 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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 8062 bytes in 1 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nsjail-3.6-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          nsjail-3.6-1.fc46.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/tmpwhs7zf9d')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

nsjail.src: E: spelling-error ('cgroups', "%description -l en_US cgroups -> groups, croup's, group's")
nsjail.src: E: spelling-error ('rlimits', "%description -l en_US rlimits -> limits, limit's, delimits")
nsjail.src: E: spelling-error ('seccomp', '%description -l en_US seccomp -> sec comp, sec-comp, scamp')
nsjail.src: E: spelling-error ('bpf', '%description -l en_US bpf -> BP, bf, pf')
nsjail.src: E: spelling-error ('syscall', '%description -l en_US syscall -> miscall, Scala, scale')
nsjail.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('cgroups', "%description -l en_US cgroups -> groups, croup's, group's")
nsjail.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('rlimits', "%description -l en_US rlimits -> limits, limit's, delimits")
nsjail.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('seccomp', '%description -l en_US seccomp -> sec comp, sec-comp, scamp')
nsjail.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('bpf', '%description -l en_US bpf -> BP, bf, pf')
nsjail.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('syscall', '%description -l en_US syscall -> miscall, Scala, scale')
nsjail.spec: W: no-%check-section
nsjail.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: nsjail-3.6.tar.bz2
nsjail.src: W: invalid-license A lightweight process isolation tool
nsjail.x86_64: W: invalid-license A lightweight process isolation tool
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 4 warnings, 9 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.2 s 

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: nsjail-debuginfo-3.6-1.fc46.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/tmpgnrnyd_q')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

nsjail-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license A lightweight process isolation tool
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 2

nsjail.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('cgroups', '%description -l en_US cgroups -> groups, c groups')
nsjail.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('rlimits', "%description -l en_US rlimits -> limits, r limits, limit's")
nsjail.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('seccomp', '%description -l en_US seccomp -> sec comp, sec-comp, compose')
nsjail.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('bpf', '%description -l en_US bpf -> bf, pf, bps')
nsjail.x86_64: W: spelling-error ('syscall', '%description -l en_US syscall -> scallop')
nsjail.x86_64: W: invalid-license A lightweight process isolation tool
nsjail-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license A lightweight process isolation tool
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 

Requires
--------
nsjail (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libnl-3.so.200()(64bit)
    libnl-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
    libnl-route-3.so.200()(64bit)
    libnl-route-3.so.200(libnl_3)(64bit)
    libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
nsjail:
    nsjail
    nsjail(x86-64)


There is a mixup in Summary/License:
 Summary:	Apache-2.0
 License:	A lightweight process isolation tool

and I prefer one buildreq per line (for cleaner diffs), the rest is fine, package is 

  APPROVED

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nsjail
Monitoring:
Anitya project is accessible by this link 
`https://release-monitoring.org/project/313671`
 you can modify it manually.
Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.

FEDORA-2026-cdf56ada3a (nsjail-3.6-3.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-cdf56ada3a

FEDORA-2026-cdf56ada3a has been pushed to the Fedora 45 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-cdf56ada3a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-cdf56ada3a

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

FEDORA-2026-cdf56ada3a (nsjail-3.6-3.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.