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 =====

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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 4 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/enum4linux/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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

Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.

===== 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.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: enum4linux-0.9.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          enum4linux-0.9.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exe -> ex, exes, exec
enum4linux.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Linux alternative to enum.exe for enumerating data from Windows and Samba hosts.
enum4linux.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A Linux alternative to enum.exe for enumerating data from Windows and Samba hosts.
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exe -> ex, exes, exec
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bindview -> bind view, bind-view, bindweed
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smbclient -> clientele
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpclient -> client
enum4linux.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nmblookup -> lookup
enum4linux.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.1 ['0.9.1-1.fc35', '0.9.1-1']
enum4linux.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2021-07-06
enum4linux.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary enum4linux.pl
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) enum -> menu, en um, en-um
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) exe -> ex, exes, exec
enum4linux.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Linux alternative to enum.exe for enumerating data from Windows and Samba hosts.
enum4linux.src: E: summary-too-long C A Linux alternative to enum.exe for enumerating data from Windows and Samba hosts.
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exe -> ex, exes, exec
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bindview -> bind view, bind-view, bindweed
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smbclient -> clientele
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpclient -> client
enum4linux.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nmblookup -> lookup
enum4linux.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2021-07-06
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 22 warnings.




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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/CiscoCXSecurity/enum4linux/archive/refs/tags/v0.9.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1d36b5340f684e527b3e30a605ab7d51e0743de29b28e7e4087402d87d0251f0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1d36b5340f684e527b3e30a605ab7d51e0743de29b28e7e4087402d87d0251f0


Requires
--------
enum4linux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.34.0)
    perl(Data::Dumper)
    perl(File::Basename)
    perl(Getopt::Std)
    perl(Scalar::Util)
    perl(Term::ANSIColor)
    perl(strict)
    perl(warnings)
    samba-client



Provides
--------
enum4linux:
    enum4linux



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name enum4linux --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Perl, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH