This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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

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



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

C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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
     [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/hfsplus/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 10516 bytes in 5 files.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: hfsplus-1.0.4p17-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          hfsplus-1.0.4p17-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp68mwkf12')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

hfsplus.src: W: no-url-tag
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpcd
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpcopy
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpfsck
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpls
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpmkdir
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpmount
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hppwd
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hprm
hfsplus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hpumount
hfsplus.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/hfsplus/COPYING
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings, 29 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: hfsplus-debuginfo-1.0.4p17-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpb49wpw7c')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

hfsplus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "hfsplus-debuginfo".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "hfsplus".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/h/hfsplus/hfsplus_1.0.4.orig.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7c357d2f9e4f3131f00308257f23bab8a644f02e75689d551cc345dceba6f027
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c357d2f9e4f3131f00308257f23bab8a644f02e75689d551cc345dceba6f027


Requires
--------
hfsplus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libhfsp.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
hfsplus:
    hfsplus
    hfsplus(x86-64)
    libhfsp.so.0()(64bit)



AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/hfsplus/upstream-
  unpacked/Source0/hfsplus-1.0.4/configure.in:26
  AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/hfsplus/upstream-
  unpacked/Source0/hfsplus-1.0.4/configure.in:72


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name hfsplus --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-39-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, fonts, Python, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH