Minor problem ?


$ fedora-review -n libresample
...
INFO: No upstream for (Source1): libresample.pc

$ fedora-review -n libresample
...
...
INFO: Install command returned error code 30

This is only a informal review. i am not in the packager group

[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: Test run failed

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libresample-devel

Rpmlint
-------
...
libresample.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libresample/LICENSE.txt
...
libresample-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libresample
...
libresample.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/Free_Resampling_Software.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libresample
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[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.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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).


[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libresample-0.1.3-32.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          libresample-devel-0.1.3-32.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          libresample-debuginfo-0.1.3-32.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          libresample-debugsource-0.1.3-32.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          libresample-0.1.3-32.fc32.src.rpm
libresample.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample
libresample.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling
libresample.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0
libresample.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libresample/LICENSE.txt
libresample.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resample-sndfile
libresample-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libresample.so
libresample-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libresample-devel/LICENSE.txt
libresample.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample
libresample.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libresample-devel-debuginfo-0.1.3-32.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          libresample-debuginfo-0.1.3-32.fc32.x86_64.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
libresample.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample
libresample.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling
libresample.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/Free_Resampling_Software.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libresample.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0
libresample.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0 /lib64/libsamplerate.so.0
libresample.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0 /lib64/libsndfile.so.1
libresample.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libresample/LICENSE.txt
libresample.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resample-sndfile
libresample-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/Free_Resampling_Software.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libresample-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/Free_Resampling_Software.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libresample-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libresample.so
libresample-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libresample.so /lib64/libsamplerate.so.0
libresample-devel.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libresample.so /lib64/libsndfile.so.1
libresample-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libresample-devel/LICENSE.txt
libresample-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/Free_Resampling_Software.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libresample-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/Free_Resampling_Software.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 14 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/gz/libresample-0.1.3.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 20222a84e3b4246c36b8a0b74834bb5674026ffdb8b9093a76aaf01560ad4815
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20222a84e3b4246c36b8a0b74834bb5674026ffdb8b9093a76aaf01560ad4815


Requires
--------
libresample (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit)
    libsndfile.so.1()(64bit)
    libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libresample-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libresample
    libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit)
    libsndfile.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libresample-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libresample-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libresample:
    libresample
    libresample(x86-64)
    libresample.so.0()(64bit)

libresample-devel:
    libresample-devel
    libresample-devel(x86-64)
    libresample.so()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(libresample)

libresample-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libresample-debuginfo
    libresample-debuginfo(x86-64)

libresample-debugsource:
    libresample-debugsource
    libresample-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libresample -DEXARCH=1
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

I'd put Summary below Name and Version...  Looks strange to have it as the first thing.

"providing several useful features relative to resample-1.7" — I don't think most
users can make any use of this comparison.

make VERBOSE=1 %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build VERBOSE=1

%{_libdir}/libresample.so.* → a specific pattern would be better. The guidelines
changed on this recently
[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files]
But since the project is dead upstream, this doesn't really matter.

rpmlint:
libresample.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0
libresample.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0 /lib64/libsamplerate.so.0
libresample.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libresample.so.0 /lib64/libsndfile.so.1
... (other warnings omitted)
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 14 warnings.

+ name is OK
+ license is (still) OK
+ builds and installs OK
+ latest version ;)

Package is RE-APPROVED.

Package available in repos