I will take this review.  If you have time, I would appreciate a review of bug 1862627 in exchange.

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

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

===== Issues ====

- The most recent changelog entry has the wrong embedded date.  It should be
  20200812 but is 20200811.  This is because the forge macros embed the current
  date, so if you rebuild the package on a different day, you get a different
  embedded date.  I like to add '%global date <date>' when using the forge
  macros to avoid this.

- The devel subpackage creates two unowned directories: %{_includedir}/Fcitx5
  and %{_datadir}/gir-1.0.  Change the "%files devel" to be:

   %{_includedir}/Fcitx5/
   %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/

- Rpmlint is complaining that the Summary line for the devel subpackage is
  longer than the description.  Change the first word of the description to
  "Development" and that complaint will go away.

- The explicit Requires on fcitx5, gtk2, and gtk3 should be removed.  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/Fcitx5,
     /usr/share/gir-1.0
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Upstream did not provide any tests, so this is expected.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: fcitx5-gtk-0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fcitx5-gtk-devel-0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fcitx5-gtk-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fcitx5-gtk-debugsource-0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fcitx5-gtk-0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34.src.rpm
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) im -> mi, um, om
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US im -> mi, um, om
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2.20200811gitfc335f1 ['0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34', '0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1']
fcitx5-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
fcitx5-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fcitx5-gtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) im -> mi, um, om
fcitx5-gtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
fcitx5-gtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US im -> mi, um, om
fcitx5-gtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fcitx5-gtk-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) im -> mi, um, om
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US im -> mi, um, om
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbus -> dubs, bus, buds
fcitx5-gtk.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2.20200811gitfc335f1 ['0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1.fc34', '0-0.2.20200812gitfc335f1']
fcitx5-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
fcitx5-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
fcitx5-gtk: /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules/im-fcitx5.so
fcitx5-gtk: /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/immodules/im-fcitx5.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx5-gtk/archive/fc335f1d6be8820d021db282cf90b746dc7d9b7c/fcitx5-gtk-fc335f1d6be8820d021db282cf90b746dc7d9b7c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 89f496bfbcac30af52cabbab69008ceec8e96983d42c14ef1ed69abd6f238751
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89f496bfbcac30af52cabbab69008ceec8e96983d42c14ef1ed69abd6f238751


Requires
--------
fcitx5-gtk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    fcitx5
    gtk2
    gtk3
    libFcitx5GClient.so.1()(64bit)
    libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fcitx5-gtk-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    fcitx5-gtk(x86-64)
    libFcitx5GClient.so.1()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(gio-2.0)
    pkgconfig(gobject-2.0)

fcitx5-gtk-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fcitx5-gtk-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
fcitx5-gtk:
    fcitx5-gtk
    fcitx5-gtk(x86-64)
    libFcitx5GClient.so.1()(64bit)

fcitx5-gtk-devel:
    cmake(Fcitx5GClient)
    cmake(fcitx5gclient)
    fcitx5-gtk-devel
    fcitx5-gtk-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(Fcitx5GClient)

fcitx5-gtk-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fcitx5-gtk-debuginfo
    fcitx5-gtk-debuginfo(x86-64)

fcitx5-gtk-debugsource:
    fcitx5-gtk-debugsource
    fcitx5-gtk-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1868847 -m jerry-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --no-bootstrap-chroot --isolation=simple
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Ruby, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Java, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> ===== Issues ====
> 
> - The most recent changelog entry has the wrong embedded date.  It should be
>   20200812 but is 20200811.  This is because the forge macros embed the
> current
>   date, so if you rebuild the package on a different day, you get a different
>   embedded date.  I like to add '%global date <date>' when using the forge
>   macros to avoid this.
The date seems comes from git log information of the change date of the %global commit xxx line, 
and the date is not independent with the time zone (I can't predict what date will be generated on
copr nor koij)

but it seems rpm macros mataincers are doing some change in recent versions, for example:
- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-32-x86_64/01612195-fcitx5-configtool/
- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612195-fcitx5-configtool/
the two builds, the rawhide one don't have the date any more, while I think I am bumping 0-0.N --> 0-0.(N+1) on every new 
version, the release strings will still work (no matter the forge macro changes like what)
> 
> - The devel subpackage creates two unowned directories: %{_includedir}/Fcitx5
>   and %{_datadir}/gir-1.0.  Change the "%files devel" to be:
> 
>    %{_includedir}/Fcitx5/
I think this should be owned by fcitx5-devel, and headers provided by all fcitx5-*-devel used headers
in fcitx5-devel, I am adding explicit requires to fcitx5-*-devel

>    %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/
dnf provides `rpm --eval %{_datadir}/gir-1.0` gives me a long list, this package is owning the folder too.
> 
> - Rpmlint is complaining that the Summary line for the devel subpackage is
>   longer than the description.  Change the first word of the description to
>   "Development" and that complaint will go away.
Fixed
> 
> - The explicit Requires on fcitx5, gtk2, and gtk3 should be removed.  See
Fixed, also for fcitx5-*, will update bugzilla tickets later

> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/Fcitx5,
>      /usr/share/gir-1.0
Should be fixed
> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Fixed
> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Fixed
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>      Upstream did not provide any tests, so this is expected.
I will add test when upstream do so.

(In reply to Qiyu Yan from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> > - Rpmlint is complaining that the Summary line for the devel subpackage is
> >   longer than the description.  Change the first word of the description to
> >   "Development" and that complaint will go away.
> Fixed

Now the first word of the description reads "DeDevelopment".  Remove the initial "De".

Also, please change:

Requires:       fcitx5-devel

to

Requires:       fcitx5-devel%{?_isa}

in the devel subpackage.  After those two changes, I think this package is ready.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
> (In reply to Qiyu Yan from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> > > - Rpmlint is complaining that the Summary line for the devel subpackage is
> > >   longer than the description.  Change the first word of the description to
> > >   "Development" and that complaint will go away.
> > Fixed
> 
> Now the first word of the description reads "DeDevelopment".  Remove the
> initial "De".
> 
> Also, please change:
> 
> Requires:       fcitx5-devel
> 
> to
> 
> Requires:       fcitx5-devel%{?_isa}
> 
> in the devel subpackage.  After those two changes, I think this package is
> ready.

Done

Looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcitx5-gtk

Built in rawhide