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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present. (This is okay. spec file uses %autorelease)


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

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 2 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri/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.
[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 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]: 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]: 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).
[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.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel-0-0.1.20220127git78d3cae.fc36.noarch.rpm
          golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-0-0.1.20220127git78d3cae.fc36.src.rpm
golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri/.goipath
golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri/archive/78d3cae3a9805d89aa4fa80a362ca944c89a1b99/go-pkcs11uri-78d3cae3a9805d89aa4fa80a362ca944c89a1b99.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : dfbd98537fe1aa6e06edfae6a2062aafcf42ad4f27145d717ae97a1fdc337d12
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfbd98537fe1aa6e06edfae6a2062aafcf42ad4f27145d717ae97a1fdc337d12


Requires
--------
golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    go-filesystem



Provides
--------
golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel:
    golang(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri)
    golang(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri)(commit=78d3cae3a9805d89aa4fa80a362ca944c89a1b99)
    golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri-devel
    golang-ipath(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri)
    golang-ipath(github.com/stefanberger/go-pkcs11uri)(commit=78d3cae3a9805d89aa4fa80a362ca944c89a1b99)

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41487

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-stefanberger-pkcs11uri

FEDORA-2022-762cdc18e8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-762cdc18e8

FEDORA-2022-762cdc18e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c

FEDORA-2022-34e61cf185 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-34e61cf185

FEDORA-2022-0238b93ef9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0238b93ef9

FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c

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

FEDORA-2022-0238b93ef9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0238b93ef9`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0238b93ef9

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

FEDORA-2022-a4aff89e3c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-0238b93ef9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.