Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/00997116-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/00997116-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds-0.5.2-2.fc30.src.rpm

Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/00997119-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/00997119-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds-0.5.2-3.fc30.src.rpm

Bump to 0.6

Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/01001207-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/01001207-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds-0.6-1.fc30.src.rpm

 - Bump to 0.7

Package approved.


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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright*
     Mozilla Public License (v2.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New"
     or "Revised" License". 79 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-feeds/review-
     gnome-feeds/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 1 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]: 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 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gnome-feeds-0.6-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          gnome-feeds-0.6-1.fc32.src.rpm
gnome-feeds.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript
gnome-feeds.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-feeds
gnome-feeds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/01015745-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds.spec
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-feeds/fedora-30-x86_64/01015745-gnome-feeds/gnome-feeds-0.7-1.fc30.src.rpm

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

FEDORA-2019-4c763ec4fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4c763ec4fe

FEDORA-2019-5b282902db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-5b282902db

gnome-feeds-0.7-1.fc30, python-listparser-0.18-3.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-2019-4c763ec4fe

gnome-feeds-0.7-1.fc29, python-listparser-0.18-3.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-2019-5b282902db

gnome-feeds-0.7-1.fc30, python-listparser-0.18-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

gnome-feeds-0.7-1.fc29, python-listparser-0.18-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.