My informal review (inexperienced packager, please bare with me):

I really like this .spec file and I learned a lot from it. 

My only question is: Is there any specific reason for specifying BuildRequires in separate rows opposite to just one row with commas. Is it just personal preference?

Thanks!

(In reply to Nemanja Milosevic from comment #1)
> My only question is: Is there any specific reason for specifying
> BuildRequires in separate rows opposite to just one row with commas. Is it
> just personal preference?

Hello Nemanja!

Indeed, it is personal preference! I've seen people list them in one line, though IIRC you would use space separation instead of comma separation (I'm not sure about that).

Hello Randy,
in the meantime there have been new releases of qrcode-generator.
Could you please update to the current v20170724 and I would proceed with the package review with this version.

Wolfgang

Hello Wolfgang!

Apologies for the long response time - the last several months have eaten up my time with all the modularity changes required for Bodhi. I've rebased on the newest qrcode-generator release here, and am ready for review!

Spec URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/qrcode-generator.spec
SRPM URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc27.src.rpm

Hello Randy,
just a quick remark before completing the review:
The date of the changelog entry in the spec file (Tue Feb 14 2017) should not be earlier than the release date (20170724).

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

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



===== 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". 100 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/fedora-review/1422344
     -qrcode-generator/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
# date of the changelog entry should be corrected
[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 10240 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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:
[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: js-qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc28.src.rpm
qrcode-generator.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
js-qrcode-generator.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kazuhikoarase/qrcode-generator <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
# URL is OK
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Requires
--------
js-qrcode-generator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    js-jquery
    web-assets-filesystem


Provides
--------
js-qrcode-generator:
    js-qrcode-generator


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/kazuhikoarase/qrcode-generator/archive/v20170724/qrcode-generator-20170724.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2c16ea2e0f65617eeda330b34a697c099c25b780adc372ab2946597a6d46397c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c16ea2e0f65617eeda330b34a697c099c25b780adc372ab2946597a6d46397c


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1422344 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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

Package OK

Thanks for the review! I'll fix that date in the changelog - thanks for pointing that out. Waiting on https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/2737 to get it built.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qrcode-generator

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc25 qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a9e3bc4c72

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc25 qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a9e3bc4c72

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc27 qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-79e7d8ea00

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc27 qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-79e7d8ea00

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc26 qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1ce3e5ac9d

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc26 qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1ce3e5ac9d

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc27, qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-79e7d8ea00

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc26, qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-1ce3e5ac9d

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc25, qrcode-generator-20170724-1.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-2017-a9e3bc4c72

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc27, qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc26, qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

js-jquery-qrcode-1.0-1.fc25, qrcode-generator-20170724-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.