This is my first package and I need a sponsor. 
I builded the rpm with copr : https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/baitaand/git-octopus/build/484097/
The spec file is available on github: https://github.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/blob/master/git-octopus.spec

This is an unofficial review.

Please always use raw direct URLs for spec and SRPMS files, and the format you used in the first comment.

fedora-review is failing to parse the spec file because it tries to parse the github page (https://github.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/blob/master/git-octopus.spec), instead of the plain txt spec file.

This software requires the shasum command, which is a perl script from perl-Digest-SHA package. IMHO it would be better to use the sha1sum command from coreutils, but this would require an upstream patch.

Thanks, I added the git hub url only for reference, the direct link is in the first message: 
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec

For the shasum command I think the developers used it because it is available on mac os. We can add a patch if it is necessary.

Unfortunately, I can't sponsor you, but spec looks clean and good apart from license, license is LGPLv2+, not LGPLv2.

Also you should add BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/a2x since it's used to build documentation (man pages).

Thanks for the feedback. 

The project use a LGPLv3 license as specified in the project licence file (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lesfurets/git-octopus/master/LICENSE) and the spec file.

I will update the BuildRequires section adding the a2x as you suggested.

Spec updated with doc generation: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/baitaand/git-octopus/fedora-25-i386/00485440-git-octopus/git-octopus-1.4-2.fc25.src.rpm

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

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


===== Issues =====
- Build of the documentation is not using %{?_smp_mflags}.
  Not a blocker, but please fix before or after importing the srpm.


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

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: "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /tmp/1401013-git-octopus/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: 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: git-octopus-1.4-2.fc25.noarch.rpm
          git-octopus-1.4-2.fc25.src.rpm
git-octopus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce
git-octopus.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-apply-conflict-resolution
git-octopus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
git-octopus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce
git-octopus.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-apply-conflict-resolution
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
git-octopus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    /usr/bin/shasum
    git



Provides
--------
git-octopus:
    git-octopus



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lesfurets/git-octopus/archive/v1.4/git-octopus-1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e2800eea829c6fc74da0d3f3fcb3f7d328d1ac8fbb7b2eca8c651c0c903a50c3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e2800eea829c6fc74da0d3f3fcb3f7d328d1ac8fbb7b2eca8c651c0c903a50c3


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1401013 -m fedora-25-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-25-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Hi Andrea,

Package is APPROVED, I'll sponsor you.

Please fix the issue with doc build before or after importing the package, but this is not a blocker.

Regards,
Xavier

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/git-octopus