[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Roman Dementiev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|ERRATA  |NEXTRELEASE




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2021-06-05 01:14:25



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-317a06a3a4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-317a06a3a4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-317a06a3a4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-317a06a3a4

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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-317a06a3a4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-317a06a3a4


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #13 from Roman Dementiev  ---
thanks to Leigh Scott I just became a member of packager group. I will continue
with the next step.

Roman

PS:

here are new links with the newest upstream release that includes Snowridge
processor support:

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rdementi/PCM/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02205934-pcm/pcm.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rdementi/PCM/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02205934-pcm/pcm-202105-1.fc35.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #12 from Artem  ---
Thanks Petr for correction. I was rushed a little bit and also gave wrong link.
But i've already marked 'Blocks: 177841'. Tips how to speedup this process
(this is not necessary):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Show_Your_Expertise_by_Commenting_on_other_Review_Requests


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ppi...@redhat.com



--- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar  ---
You don't need any proven packager. First you need to become a member of a
"packager" group.
Then that you will be able request relengs for creating a repository for this
new package.

To become a packager, you need a sponsor who will grant you the membership
.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #10 from Prarit Bhargava  ---
Roman, please reach out to 'de...@lists.fedoraproject.org' and let them know
you have a new package that needs Proven Packager sign-off.  Include a
description of this package and a link to this BZ.

Thanks,

P.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #9 from Roman Dementiev  ---
updated the links with the newest upstream release that includes Icelake server
support:

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rdementi/PCM/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02152984-pcm/pcm.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rdementi/PCM/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02152984-pcm/pcm-202104-1.fc35.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #8 from Artem  ---
(In reply to Roman Dementiev from comment #7)
I would like but i can't since only Proven Packagers can do that
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/

I guess everyone busy now at this moment since forthcoming f34 and deadline...


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #7 from Roman Dementiev  ---
>Last step you need a sponsor. Hope it will not be for long.

Artem, would you be able to sponsor me?

Thanks,
Roman


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #6 from Roman Dementiev  ---
>Drop '%{_datadir}/%{name}/opCode.txt' since '%{_datadir}/%{name}/' mean all 
>child dirs owned by rpm.

done


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Artem  ---
Great, thank you. LGTM now and just one minor issue which could fixed before
import:

  %{_datadir}/%{name}/
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/opCode.txt
  ->
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/

Drop '%{_datadir}/%{name}/opCode.txt' since '%{_datadir}/%{name}/' mean all
child dirs owned by rpm.

Last step you need a sponsor. Hope it will not be for long.

Package approved.

---

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/pcm/opCode.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files


= 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
 License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
 "Revised" License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
 License". 163 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/fedora-
 review/1949058-pcm/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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #4 from Roman Dementiev  ---
We have addressed the requirements above. Please check if we missed anything in
the new version:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opcm/pcm/master/fedora/pcm.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/opcm/pcm/releases/download/202103/pcm-202103-1.fc33.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #3 from Roman Dementiev  ---
thanks for the quick and detailed review. We are working on changes.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058



--- Comment #2 from Artem  ---
15. Add %set_build_flags before %make_build:

%build
%set_build_flags
%make_build


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Link ID||Github opcm/pcm/issues/284




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Artem  ---
Hello. Some issue which MUST fixed:

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 license.txt is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: fedora.spec should be pcm.spec
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_spec_file_naming


1. Drop this block:

%global commit 9c4f43e78a8b6814f7e8385d423cc7258c6fbe0d
%global gittag 202101
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global baserelease 1

and switch to releases. 'Source' could like like this:

Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz


2. Drop 'Group'. It's not used in Fedora anymore.


3. Add 'BR: make'.


4. Remove '%global debug_package %{nil}' and use canonical Fedora build flags
for providing useful debuginfo generation.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/


5. %setup -q -n pcm-%{version}
   ->
   %autosetup


6. CFLAGS="%{optflags}" make -j
   ->
   %make_build

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make


7. Remove 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in %install.


8. make install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/..
   ->
   %make_install


9. Move license file from %doc to %license:

   %license license.txt


10. %dir /usr/share/pcm
->
%{_datadir}/%{name}/


11. Add 'README.md' and 'FAQ'md' to %doc.


12. Changelog not complies Fedora format.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs


13. Use consistently name macros in %files:

%{_sbindir}/pcm-core
->
%{_sbindir}/%{name]-core

and such.

14. Rename fedora.spec -> pcm.spec

---

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 license.txt is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: fedora.spec should be pcm.spec
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_spec_file_naming


= 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]: 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
 License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
 "Revised" License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
 License". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/fedora-
 review/1949058-fedora/licensecheck.txt
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and