Bug 1787919

 - I would prefix the version number in case upstream move to a more standard version number:

Version:        0.0.2019.11.06

 - Push for upstream to put their binaries in lib/lib64 rather than share:

marker.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/com.github.fabiocolacio.marker/extensions/libscroll-extension.so


Package approved.


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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 20480 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in marker-
     data
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1146880 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: marker-2019.11.06-4.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          marker-data-2019.11.06-4.fc32.noarch.rpm
          marker-debuginfo-2019.11.06-4.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          marker-debugsource-2019.11.06-4.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          marker-2019.11.06-4.fc32.src.rpm
marker.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/com.github.fabiocolacio.marker/extensions/libscroll-extension.so
marker.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/share/com.github.fabiocolacio.marker/extensions/libscroll-extension.so
marker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary marker
marker-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
marker.src:78: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(katex)
marker.src:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(asana-math-fonts)
marker.src:84: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gyre-pagella-fonts)
marker.src:85: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gyre-termes-fonts)
marker.src:86: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(katex-fonts)
marker.src:87: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(latin-modern-fonts)
marker.src:88: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(neo-euler-fonts)
marker.src:89: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(stix-web-fonts)
marker.src:90: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(tex-fonts)
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings.

>  - Push for upstream to put their binaries in lib/lib64 rather than share:
> 
> marker.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
> /usr/share/com.github.fabiocolacio.marker/extensions/libscroll-extension.so

Yep. Already filed a bug https://github.com/fabiocolacio/Marker/issues/293

Thank you for review.

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

marker-0.0.2019.11.06-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-34660bf5e5

marker-0.0.2019.11.06-5.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6f0f298a08

marker-0.0.2019.11.06-5.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

marker-0.0.2019.11.06-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.