Package Approved.

But you need move AUTHORS file to %doc.

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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Header 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 29 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/vascom/1936414-cotila/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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).
[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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: cotila-devel-1.2.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          cotila-1.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/calebzulawski/cotila/archive/1.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 898ebfdf562cd1a3622870e17a703b38559cf2c607b2d5f79e6b3a55563af619
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 898ebfdf562cd1a3622870e17a703b38559cf2c607b2d5f79e6b3a55563af619


Requires
--------
cotila-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem



Provides
--------
cotila-devel:
    cmake(cotila)
    cotila-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1936414
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Java, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Python, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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

FEDORA-2021-b5045c1abd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b5045c1abd

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f2d090c278 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f2d090c278

FEDORA-2021-0d4c100b9a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0d4c100b9a

FEDORA-2021-d825effb46 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d825effb46

FEDORA-2021-d825effb46 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d825effb46 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d825effb46

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

FEDORA-2021-b5045c1abd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b5045c1abd \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b5045c1abd

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f2d090c278 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-2021-f2d090c278

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

FEDORA-2021-0d4c100b9a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-0d4c100b9a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0d4c100b9a

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

The Summary has a typo: Algegra

FEDORA-2021-0d4c100b9a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-aef64b29ab has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-aef64b29ab`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-aef64b29ab

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a7823ecef1 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-2021-a7823ecef1

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

FEDORA-2021-f89452f69c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f89452f69c`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f89452f69c

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

FEDORA-2021-f89452f69c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-aef64b29ab has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a7823ecef1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.