This is the first package review for me along with BZ#1919347.

Note that I'm the upstream maintainer of this.

Hello again! 
I will duplicate the remarks I made in BZ#1919347.

It's better to start versioning your libraries. As the upstream maintainer you can do that. Please, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning

> Release: 0%{?dist}
Release: tag starting with 1 (never 0).

> ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64
What about other arches? Crash supports other arches too.
As stated in Packaging Guidlines, "Fedora packagers should make every effort to support all primary architectures".

> BuildRequires: crash-devel >= 7.2.0-2
All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
You need at least gcc.

> make
Whenever possible, invocations of make should be done as %make_build.

> %defattr(-,root,root)
The %defattr directive in the %files list SHOULD ONLY be used when setting a non-default value, or to reset to the default value after having set a non-default value.

> %doc COPYING
It's more license than doc, so you can use %license here. 
You can set REAMDE as %doc for example.

And some new:
> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
%clean section SHOULD NOT be used.

Thanks again for your comments, Vladislav.

Most replies to your comments are same as in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347#c4 except for

(In reply to Vladislav Kazakov from comment #2)
...snip...
> > ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64
> What about other arches? Crash supports other arches too.
> As stated in Packaging Guidlines, "Fedora packagers should make every effort
> to support all primary architectures".

here in that I'll add ppc64le and s390x in the next version for crash trace command.

Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke

I'll reflect the comments from Vladislav.

Please refer to the latest versions from the following URLs:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/master/crash-trace-command.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/raw/master/crash-trace-command-3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm

I didn't do SONAME versioning because trace.so is a plugin but did mark trace.so with DT_SOLIB at https://github.com/fujitsu/crash-trace/commit/2b4250c0c10b88ca21ce02b79b6516c4e45a5714.
If it's necessary to include this, I'll do it at the end of this package review.

Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke

You're still using plain 'make' instead of %make_build . Is there a reason?

In %install, please use install -dm755 instead of mkdir -p to avoid depending on the build environment's umask being 022.

Hi, Hatayama

I just noticed that you had updated them in the source rpm package, but seems that it has been forgotten to update the crash-trace-command.spec?

BTW: I have the same questions(see comment#8 bz1919347) about the dependencies of packages.

Otherwise, it looks good to me.

Thanks.

Dominik, Lianbo,

Thanks for your comments.

I've updated the spec file and source rpm file.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/master/crash-trace-command.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/raw/master/crash-trace-command-3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm

(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #5)
> You're still using plain 'make' instead of %make_build . Is there a reason?
> 
> In %install, please use install -dm755 instead of mkdir -p to avoid
> depending on the build environment's umask being 022.

Just as BZ#1919347, I didn't update the spec file.

I confirmed this time both files.

(In reply to lijiang from comment #6)
> Hi, Hatayama
> 
> I just noticed that you had updated them in the source rpm package, but
> seems that it has been forgotten to update the crash-trace-command.spec?

Thanks for pointing that.

> 
> BTW: I have the same questions(see comment#8 bz1919347) about the
> dependencies of packages.

As I already commented at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347#c9,
I don't think such dependencies are necessary for crash-trace-command.

Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke

Same first couple of topics as in BZ 1919347:
- No package seems to own the crash/extensions directory.
- Missing %doc - packagers choice to add README.

Additionally, the %clean section can be removed.


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.
[-]: 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.
(trace.so is a crash plugin, not intended for general developers use)
[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.
[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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 1 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/nathans/review/1919349-crash-trace-command/review-crash-trace-
     command/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/crash/extensions, /usr/lib64/crash
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/crash,
     /usr/lib64/crash/extensions
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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).
[x]: 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]: Buildroot is not present
[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:
[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: crash-trace-command-3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          crash-trace-command-debuginfo-3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          crash-trace-command-debugsource-3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          crash-trace-command-3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
crash-trace-command.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ftrace -> trace, f trace, ft race
crash-trace-command.x86_64: W: no-documentation
crash-trace-command.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ftrace -> trace, f trace, ft race
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: crash-trace-command-debuginfo-3.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
crash-trace-command.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ftrace -> trace, f trace, ft race
crash-trace-command.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
crash-trace-command: /usr/lib64/crash/extensions/trace.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fujitsu/crash-trace/archive/v3.0/crash-trace-command-3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f88335b7516a2995c9f798bc31c7fc463e3296c36ae2ce6b7db30a6ebd52d3c0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f88335b7516a2995c9f798bc31c7fc463e3296c36ae2ce6b7db30a6ebd52d3c0


Requires
--------
crash-trace-command (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    crash
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    trace-cmd

crash-trace-command-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

crash-trace-command-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
crash-trace-command:
    crash-trace-command
    crash-trace-command(x86-64)

crash-trace-command-debuginfo:
    crash-trace-command-debuginfo
    crash-trace-command-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

crash-trace-command-debugsource:
    crash-trace-command-debugsource
    crash-trace-command-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -c -p -n crash-trace-command
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Python, R, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Nathan,

Thanks for your reviewing.

(In reply to Nathan Scott from comment #8)
> Same first couple of topics as in BZ 1919347:
> - No package seems to own the crash/extensions directory.
> - Missing %doc - packagers choice to add README.
> 
> Additionally, the %clean section can be removed.

I've reflected the comments except for README.

Here's the update:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/master/crash-trace-command.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/raw/master/crash-trace-command-3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm

Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke

Looks good!

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