Taking

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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(kde-
     ....
     waived out and I opened this topic on fedora-packaging mailing list
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/abrt/container-
     exception-logger/archive/1.0.1/container-exception-logger-1.0.1.tar.gz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[!]: 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.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
     It does not make sense here as all final files are generated.
[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]: 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.
     Only error with setuid binary, but this is intended.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Issues
======
Please add comment before Source0 how the tar.gz have been generating:
# source is created by:
# git clone https://github.com/FIXME
# cd FIXME; tito build --tgz

You are packager and upstream at the same time, so it would be nice if you can add LICENSE file in upstream and put it in %files section.

- Package uses hardened build flags if required to.                                                                                             
  Note: suid files: container-exception-logger and not %global                                                                                  
  _hardened_build                                                                                                                               
  See:                                                                                                                                          
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

Updated:
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mhabrnal/container-exception-logger.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mhabrnal/container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

APPROVED

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

container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ea63353e4d

container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-712a7ab35f

container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-ea63353e4d

container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.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-2018-712a7ab35f

container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

container-exception-logger-1.0.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.