Created attachment 1179313 [details]
patch

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

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


Issues:
=======
- The Release field should contain the snapshot date
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
- The BINDIR and INCDIR variables used in Makefile should probably be overriden
  from spec file by the %{_bindir} and %{_includedir} macros
- Please apply the attached patch to make the spec file cleaner

Suggestions:
============
- Perhaps the documentation at
  http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~leonerd/libvterm/trunk/files/head:/doc/
  could be included (perhaps in the -devel subpackage?)
- The executables unterm, vterm-ctrl and vterm-dump could have some man pages


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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]: %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
[-]: 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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libvterm-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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.
[x]: %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]: 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: 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: libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libvterm-devel-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libvterm-tools-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libvterm-debuginfo-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25.src.rpm
libvterm.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvterm-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libvterm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unterm
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vterm-dump
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vterm-ctrl
libvterm.src:41: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libvterm-debuginfo-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
libvterm-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libvterm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvterm.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vterm-ctrl
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vterm-dump
libvterm-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unterm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
libvterm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libvterm(x86-64)
    libvterm.so.0()(64bit)

libvterm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libvterm-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libvterm(x86-64)
    libvterm.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libvterm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libvterm-devel:
    libvterm-devel
    libvterm-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(vterm)

libvterm:
    libvterm
    libvterm(x86-64)
    libvterm.so.0()(64bit)

libvterm-tools:
    libvterm-tools
    libvterm-tools(x86-64)

libvterm-debuginfo:
    libvterm-debuginfo
    libvterm-debuginfo(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~leonerd/libvterm/trunk/tarball/681/libvterm-681.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b527fc6366f2b1d05e65ba66938be86a2ee5b35981fef1677da1658600df695b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48e552fb97724127c5eadd83df9f88a36325e6ac5d3d89a58d791914367ea9f4
However, diff -r shows no differences


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1327218 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

> - The Release field should contain the snapshot date
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
thanks, but I'm not going to do that.
> - The BINDIR and INCDIR variables used in Makefile should probably be overriden
>   from spec file by the %{_bindir} and %{_includedir} macros
When it will stop working, then I will do something about that.
> - Please apply the attached patch to make the spec file cleaner
ok, will do.
> - Perhaps the documentation at
>   http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~leonerd/libvterm/trunk/files/head:/doc/
>   could be included (perhaps in the -devel subpackage?)
no, that's too much work.
> - The executables unterm, vterm-ctrl and vterm-dump could have some man pages
feel free to write it.

Any real issues?

I suppose not :).

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libvterm

libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-df8e01600e

libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1dbe8784a8

libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-df8e01600e

libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-1dbe8784a8

libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libvterm-0-0.1.bzr681.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.