Dependent package libusb has been obsoleted by libusb-compat-0.1 on f37 and newer.

Updated SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec

Updated SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04120952-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-2.20220401git8228f0d.fc37.src.rpm

UPDATE

 - use install rather than cp
 - commenting out some of the config options made more sensible defaults on my system

Updated SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec

Updated SRM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04166075-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-3.20220401git8228f0d.fc37.src.rpm

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
- 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.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


===== 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]: 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.
[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", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software
     License 1.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple
     Place)]". 113 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/steve/src/fedora/2073196-rtl-433/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 337920 bytes in 64 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/merbanan/rtl_433/archive/8228f0d4819bb07146b421cce3b535bd4d4db69c/rtl-433-8228f0d4819bb07146b421cce3b535bd4d4db69c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ffb4cea4bd42e7acd720bc9972a229b46c21430f4708e980786e98b76f0cdecf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ffb4cea4bd42e7acd720bc9972a229b46c21430f4708e980786e98b76f0cdecf


Requires
--------
rtl-433 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(rtl-433)
    libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

rtl-433-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rtl-433(x86-64)

rtl-433-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

rtl-433-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
rtl-433:
    config(rtl-433)
    rtl-433
    rtl-433(x86-64)

rtl-433-devel:
    rtl-433-devel
    rtl-433-devel(x86-64)

rtl-433-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    rtl-433-debuginfo
    rtl-433-debuginfo(x86-64)

rtl-433-debugsource:
    rtl-433-debugsource
    rtl-433-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073196
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Python, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks Steve, for the feedback.
- Added COPYING to %license
- Added %ctest suite to %check

Updated SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/rtl-433.spec

Updated SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/rtl-433/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04263170-rtl-433/rtl-433-21.12-4.20220401git8228f0d.fc37.src.rpm

fedpkg repo request has been sent

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rtl-433

FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5

FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973

FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6

FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 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-2022-59f403da04

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

FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 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-2022-2f7e10f344 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344

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

FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973

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

FEDORA-2022-9b735d5973 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-2f7e10f344 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a94c6550d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-59f403da04 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-24f62591a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.