APPROVED.

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[-]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[-]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


Rpmlint
-------
[root@fedora30 noarch]# rpmlint -i -v *
flent.noarch: I: checking
flent.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bufferbloat -> buffer bloat, buffer-bloat, buffaloes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netperf -> netter
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iperf -> imperf
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamped -> time stamped, time-stamped, times tamped
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent.noarch: I: checking-url https://flent.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
flent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flent-gui
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

flent-doc.noarch: I: checking
flent-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netperf -> netter
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iperf -> imperf
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv -> cs, cs v, CST
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamped -> time stamped, time-stamped, times tamped
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

flent-doc.noarch: I: checking-url https://flent.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
flent-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/flent-doc/html/.buildinfo
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.

.buildinfo has since been removed:
https://github.com/tohojo/flent/commit/4ae001da7190ac0370af833baa84555051c3e064

As that is the case, spelling errors notwithstanding, rpmlint output shows nothing
of consequence.

Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR

I sponsored Toke.

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

FEDORA-2019-20eb7e6aa6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-20eb7e6aa6

FEDORA-2019-1ee6937d8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1ee6937d8b

flent-1.3.0-1.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-2019-20eb7e6aa6

flent-1.3.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-1ee6937d8b

flent-1.3.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.