Really nice job with the SPEC file! It looks super clean!

If you need a sponsor, your report should block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-NEEDSPONSOR
That way it will be properly tracked and can be picked up by prospective sponsors :)

> - Changed Source0 to use .xz file instead of .gz

I think either is fine.

> License:        BSD

`licensecheck` reports the following:
epic5-2.1.2/contrib/ircman.c: *No copyright* GNU General Public License

There is a comment header in that file which indicates that it is indeed GPL licensed. I would change the "License:" block to:
License:        BSD and GPL
and add a comment above "License:" to indicate this file is GPL licensed.

> BuildRequires:  gcc
> BuildRequires:  gdbm-devel
> BuildRequires:  ncurses-devel
> BuildRequires:  openssl-devel

The -devel packages can be represented as "pkgconfig(foo)", for instance "pkgconfig(gdbm)" instead of "gdbm-devel". If building fails for any of these, you can safely use the "package-devel" format.

> %install
> %make_install

Pass the "-p" flag to %make_install to preserve timestamps.

Full review below:
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epic5
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2826240 bytes in 216 files.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_documentation
  Review: Please, put the docs dir into a separate -doc package.


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

C/C++:
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright*
     Public domain", "Expat License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old"
     License". 275 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5468160 bytes in /usr/share
     Review: You can probably move stuff that goes into %{_datadir}/%{name}
     to a separate -data subpackage. I'm not sure whether the 5.4MB is worth
     the split, though.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.4
INFO: Mock Version: 2.4
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.i686.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.s390x.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.armv7hl.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.aarch64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.ppc64le.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.i686.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.s390x.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.armv7hl.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.aarch64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.ppc64le.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: epic5-2.1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
epic5.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ircII -> IRC, cir
epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nhanced -> enhanced, chanced, nuanced
epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rogrammable -> programmable, programmer
epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lient -> lien, lint, lent
epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ircII -> IRC, cir
epic5.src: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/epic5 HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Manual Rpmlint
--------------
epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ircII -> IRC, cir
epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nhanced -> enhanced, chanced, nuanced
epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rogrammable -> programmable, programmer
epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lient -> lien, lint, lent
epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ircII -> IRC, cir
epic5.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/epic5 HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable
epic5.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/epic5-2.1.2
epic5.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/epic5/UPDATES
epic5.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/epic5.1.gz 236: warning: macro `Tp' not defined
epic5.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/epic5.1.gz 252: warning: macro `TP' not defined
epic5.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary epic5-2.1.2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
http://ftp.epicsol.org/pub/epic/EPIC5-PRODUCTION/epic5-2.1.2.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5e41cf00f924e79e3503dd456ecd9b1dd93ac447c2573d4fa7da03b8bd19dbad
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e41cf00f924e79e3503dd456ecd9b1dd93ac447c2573d4fa7da03b8bd19dbad


Requires
--------


Provides
--------

Thank you for the review Andy. Comments inline.

(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Really nice job with the SPEC file! It looks super clean!
> 
> If you need a sponsor, your report should block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug
> report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-NEEDSPONSOR
> That way it will be properly tracked and can be picked up by prospective
> sponsors :)

Thank you - I have done this :)

> 
> > - Changed Source0 to use .xz file instead of .gz
> 
> I think either is fine.
> 
> > License:        BSD
> 
> `licensecheck` reports the following:
> epic5-2.1.2/contrib/ircman.c: *No copyright* GNU General Public License
> 
> There is a comment header in that file which indicates that it is indeed GPL
> licensed. I would change the "License:" block to:
> License:        BSD and GPL
> and add a comment above "License:" to indicate this file is GPL licensed.

Done.

> > BuildRequires:  gcc
> > BuildRequires:  gdbm-devel
> > BuildRequires:  ncurses-devel
> > BuildRequires:  openssl-devel
> 
> The -devel packages can be represented as "pkgconfig(foo)", for instance
> "pkgconfig(gdbm)" instead of "gdbm-devel". If building fails for any of
> these, you can safely use the "package-devel" format.

Okay - ncurses and openssl worked with pkgconfig() but gdbm didn't so I have left that as -devel.

> > %install
> > %make_install
> 
> Pass the "-p" flag to %make_install to preserve timestamps.

Done.

> Full review below:
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - Package installs properly.
>   Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epic5
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>   (~1MB) or number of files.
>   Note: Documentation size is 2826240 bytes in 216 files.
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/#_documentation
>   Review: Please, put the docs dir into a separate -doc package.

I'm not sure where that documentation size has come from:

[p@athena:~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/epic5] % du -sh .
516K	.
[p@athena:~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/epic5] % ls -R | wc -l
37

> 
> 
> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> C/C++:
> [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>      one supported primary architecture.
>      Note: Using prebuilt packages
> [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]: 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.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
>      License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright*
>      Public domain", "Expat License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old"
>      License". 275 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in
>      /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5/licensecheck.txt
> [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.
> [-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [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 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:
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [x]: 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]: 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.
> [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.
> [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> [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:
> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: Mock build failed
>      See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>      guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
> [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
>      is arched.
>      Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5468160 bytes in /usr/share
>      Review: You can probably move stuff that goes into %{_datadir}/%{name}
>      to a separate -data subpackage. I'm not sure whether the 5.4MB is worth
>      the split, though.

Again, not sure where these size numbers have come from!

[p@athena:~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share] % du -sh .
1.1M	.

> 
> 
> Installation errors
> -------------------
> INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.3)...
> Start: init plugins
> INFO: selinux enabled
> Finish: init plugins
> INFO: Signal handler active
> Start: run
> Start: chroot init
> INFO: calling preinit hooks
> INFO: enabled root cache
> INFO: enabled package manager cache
> Start: cleaning package manager metadata
> Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
> INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
> Mock Version: 2.4
> INFO: Mock Version: 2.4
> Finish: chroot init
> INFO: installing package(s):
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.i686.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.s390x.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.armv7hl.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.aarch64.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.ppc64le.rpm
> ERROR: Command failed: 
>  # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
> --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
> --disableplugin=spacewalk install

I'm not too sure why this is failing?

> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.i686.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.s390x.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.armv7hl.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.aarch64.rpm
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/epic5/epic5-debuginfo-2.1.2-1.fc33.ppc64le.rpm
> --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: epic5-2.1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
> epic5.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ircII -> IRC, cir
> epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nhanced -> enhanced,
> chanced, nuanced
> epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rogrammable ->
> programmable, programmer
> epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lient -> lien, lint, lent
> epic5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ircII -> IRC, cir
> epic5.src: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/epic5 HTTP
> Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
> 
> Manual Rpmlint
> --------------
> epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ircII -> IRC, cir
> epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nhanced -> enhanced,
> chanced, nuanced
> epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rogrammable ->
> programmable, programmer
> epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lient -> lien, lint,
> lent
> epic5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ircII -> IRC, cir
> epic5.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/epic5
> HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable
> epic5.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/epic5-2.1.2

My interpretation of the code is that setuid(getuid()); is called on a forked child PID to ensure the user running the program owns the child and exiting if it does not -- setuid() is not called in relation to dropping privileges. I can double-check this with the author if necessary.

> epic5.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/epic5/UPDATES
> epic5.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/epic5.1.gz 236:
> warning: macro `Tp' not defined
> epic5.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/epic5.1.gz 252:
> warning: macro `TP' not defined
> epic5.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary epic5-2.1.2
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> http://ftp.epicsol.org/pub/epic/EPIC5-PRODUCTION/epic5-2.1.2.tar.xz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> 5e41cf00f924e79e3503dd456ecd9b1dd93ac447c2573d4fa7da03b8bd19dbad
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 5e41cf00f924e79e3503dd456ecd9b1dd93ac447c2573d4fa7da03b8bd19dbad
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------

Files have been updated to reflect changes:

Spec URL: https://kobol.org/~p/fedora-rpms/epic5/epic5.spec
SRPM URL: https://kobol.org/~p/fedora-rpms/epic5/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm

- Paul

> Okay - ncurses and openssl worked with pkgconfig() but gdbm didn't so I have left that as -devel.

I tried building from your SPEC file with a little tweak for "pkgconfig(gdbm)" in Fedora 33 (local x86_64 mock environment), but the -devel package in Fedora 33 doesn't seem to provide a pkgconfig file either.

> I'm not sure where that documentation size has come from:

> [p@athena:~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/epic5] % du -sh .
> 516K	.
> [p@athena:~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/epic5] % ls -R | wc -l
> 37

> Again, not sure where these size numbers have come from!

> [p@athena:~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/epic5-2.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share] % du -sh .
> 1.1M	.

Thanks for double-checking this! Don't worry about the sizes then.

> I'm not too sure why this is failing?

There are some issues related to annobin, I think. I had to jump through a couple of hoops in my recent reviews as well.

Also, and this is totally my fault, according to the licensing guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses), "GPL" alone is not a valid license. It should say "GPL+", which translates to "A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under".

As a last check I ran extra Koji builds for Fedora 32 and 33 - all clear:
- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47886526
- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47886434

Package approved! You just need a sponsor now :).

(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #3)
> Also, and this is totally my fault, according to the licensing guidelines
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:
> Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses), "GPL" alone is not a valid license. It
> should say "GPL+", which translates to "A GPL or LGPL licensed package that
> lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under".

No problem at all, I will change License: to "BSD and GPL+".
> As a last check I ran extra Koji builds for Fedora 32 and 33 - all clear:
> - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47886526
> - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47886434
> 
> Package approved! You just need a sponsor now :).

That's great, thank you very much for your time!

Any progress on the unretirement process? :)

(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #5)
> Any progress on the unretirement process? :)

Hi Andy, sorry for the delayed response.

I haven't requested the package be un-retired yet as I don't have a sponsor. My intention was to request un-retirement once I knew I could get the new package into the repos.

> I haven't requested the package be un-retired yet as I don't have a sponsor. My intention was to request un-retirement once I knew I could get the new package into the repos.

Right, I forgot about that, sorry!

Have a look at this guide perhaps: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Also, ping the fedora-devel mailing list again to make sure people are aware that you need a sponsor :).