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


Issues:
=======
- 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 ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the
  old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for
  converting it to SPDX.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1


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

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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License
     v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete
     FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple
     Place)]", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
     2.1", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later and/or Public domain",
     "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU
     General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
     Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General
     Public License v2.0 only [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple
     Place)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal
     address (Temple Place)]". 1089 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/biglybt/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java,
     /usr/share/application-registry
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 13231 bytes in 3 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools
     (jpackage-utils)
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
     is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools
     (jpackage-utils)
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

===== 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.
[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]: 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.

Java:
[ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: biglybt-3.7.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          biglybt-javadoc-3.7.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          biglybt-3.7.0.0-1.fc40.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/tmpk36q9c2u')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

biglybt-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99%
biglybt.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD
biglybt.src: W: invalid-license BSD
biglybt-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD
biglybt.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/biglybt/BiglyBT.jar
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 8.7 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "biglybt".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "biglybt-javadoc".
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://github.com/BiglySoftware/BiglyBT/archive/v3.7.0.0/BiglyBT-3.7.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4a3141e5fc4fff4e022d8d4f328590e5536729dd129de4b75c00d90b40417401
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a3141e5fc4fff4e022d8d4f328590e5536729dd129de4b75c00d90b40417401


Requires
--------
biglybt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-cli)
    mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
    mvn(org.eclipse.swt:org.eclipse.swt)

biglybt-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
biglybt:
    application()
    application(biglybt.desktop)
    biglybt
    bundled(bouncycastle)
    bundled(json_simple)
    mimehandler(application/x-biglybt)
    mimehandler(application/x-bittorrent)
    mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/biglybt)
    mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/magnet)

biglybt-javadoc:
    biglybt-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name biglybt --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-40-s390x
Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, fonts, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH