Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/anope.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/anope-2.0.9-1.src.rpm

 - Note that %cmake3 would work on Fedora too:

%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} < 8
%global cmake %cmake3
%global cmake_build %cmake3_build
%global cmake_install %cmake3_install

so you can use %cmake3 for all

 - Please specify the license breakdown:

License:        GPLv2+ and BSD and RSA




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

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


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License",
     "Public domain", "NTP License". 431 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/anope/review-anope/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 266240 bytes in 21 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in anope
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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]: 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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2375680 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: anope-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-ldap-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-mysql-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-pcre-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-tre-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-sqlite-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-gnutls-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-openssl-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-debuginfo-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-debugsource-2.0.9-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          anope-2.0.9-1.fc34.src.rpm
anope.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/anope
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/anope 750
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/botserv.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/botserv.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/chanserv.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/chanserv.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/global.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/global.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/hostserv.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/hostserv.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/memoserv.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/memoserv.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/modules.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/modules.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/nickserv.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/nickserv.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/operserv.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/operserv.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/services.conf anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/services.conf 640
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/services.motd anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/services.motd 640
anope.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/anope/services.motd
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/anope anope
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/anope anope
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/10/bcb4d0c65442648d5c1cf2ade7e47b608e89d1 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_ssl_openssl.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/1f/1360c4a84cc2a5c5522f0eb604d3b18731a5d3 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_regex_pcre.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/1f/8dfa43d5c601b2ba72c50098c7b37751f4ee5a ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_mysql.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/25/0e7c2ba38ebb7bf07b763fcce0ddbea5da48b5 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_ldap_oper.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/2b/9a51cec295308b545c7de3a4b8e84fc920bef2 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_sqlite.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/36/a099b49f2792b4bb84655e286949b08c14d665 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/cs_fantasy_stats.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/3c/8a56c99650dae98b08a29a503f8ba424eb7060 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/cs_fantasy_top.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/83/7fbc4dbf41f86424c09398d6bde061ea29d852 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_ldap_authentication.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/83/a1d9cdf18d88b08a0654e5bc649aeed960b1d3 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/irc2sql.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/83/b6c23900ee39c480fbd9e41458165bf2a20a26 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_regex_tre.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/92/409e853e5fe153e2144b4a7219d4178ff7a8e7 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_chanstats.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/a1/e632e8182487f1a472ab3afa49e0ef74aad63b ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_ldap.so
anope.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/b9/a9aad4982857a2e7989b5922cb602dd0367c11 ../../../../usr/lib64/anope/modules/m_ssl_gnutls.so
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/anope anope
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/anope anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/anope 750
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/anope/backups anope
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/anope/backups anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/anope/backups 750
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/anope/runtime anope
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/anope/runtime anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/anope/runtime 750
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/anope anope
anope.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/anope anope
anope.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/anope 750
anope.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate ['/var/log/anope']
anope.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary anope
anope-ldap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opertypes -> stereotypes, property, typesetter
anope-ldap.x86_64: W: no-documentation
anope-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
anope-mysql.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/chanstats.conf anope
anope-mysql.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/chanstats.conf 640
anope-mysql.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/anope/irc2sql.conf anope
anope-mysql.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/anope/irc2sql.conf 640
anope-pcre.x86_64: W: no-documentation
anope-tre.x86_64: W: no-documentation
anope-sqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
anope-gnutls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uplink -> up link, up-link, linkup
anope-gnutls.x86_64: W: no-documentation
anope-openssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uplink -> up link, up-link, linkup
anope-openssl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
11 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 19 errors, 48 warning

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2)
> so you can use %cmake3 for all

Given the "CMake to do out-of-source" [1] caused issues on non-Fedora branches for multiple of my packages, I would like to stick with default %cmake as much as I can and only use %cmake3 where it is absolutely needed (= EPEL 7 only). It also makes it easier to rip it out in < 4 years when EPEL 7 reaches EOL.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds

>  - Please specify the license breakdown:
> 
> License:        GPLv2+ and BSD and RSA

Changed and breaked down in the spec file.

However what is called "Expat License" by licensecheck(1) is IMHO effectively "MIT", especially as "Expat License" doesn't seem to be a valid license mentioned at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main. What licensecheck(1) calls "NTP License" is only applicable as fallback license if "Public Domain" is "deemed null and void" (modules/encryption/enc_bcrypt.cpp). Not sure how I could express such a condition in the license tag, thus I skipped it as Fedora treats "Public Domain" as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main as a good "license".


Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/anope.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/anope-2.0.9-2.src.rpm

LGTM, package approved.

Thank you very much for the review!

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

FEDORA-2020-e3c465de6e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e3c465de6e

FEDORA-2020-aabefd4c4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aabefd4c4e

FEDORA-2020-82ed38f52a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-82ed38f52a

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-779d014383 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-779d014383

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-effe7b6243 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-effe7b6243

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-779d014383 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-779d014383

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-82ed38f52a has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-82ed38f52a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-82ed38f52a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-effe7b6243 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-effe7b6243

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-aabefd4c4e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-aabefd4c4e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aabefd4c4e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-e3c465de6e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e3c465de6e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e3c465de6e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-e3c465de6e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-aabefd4c4e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-82ed38f52a has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-779d014383 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-effe7b6243 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.