Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716469 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |a.badger@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |a.badger@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-08 14:57:17 EDT --- When starting off as a new packager, you should do reviews that list off all the things that you've checked whether they pass or fail. That way other people can see that you know what you're doing or help understand what to look for if you don't detect something. The Review Guidelines here can be used as a partial checklist: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines You can see that I also reference the rubygem guidelines in this review because there's some additional packaging guidelines for rubygems. Good: * Named according to the naming guidelines * Spec file named correctly * Package meets some of the rubygem guidelines: + naming, source, Provides, Requires, BR, empty %prep and %build, pkg is properly noarch + See below for parts that are not being followed. * Package includes license text * Spec file is legible * Source matches upstream * No locales to handle * Not a shared library or GUI * Does not bundle libraries * Not relocatable * Builds in koji * No files listed twice * Permissions on files set properly * Macros used consistently * Code, not content * Package does not own files or directories owned by another package * All filenames are utf-8 * rpmlint has only this: rubygem-rhc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/rhc-0.71.2/ri/RHC/hostexist%3f-c.yaml %3f False positive. Rubygems are internally escaping certain characters for these files. The "%" shows up for that reason, not because of an unexpanded rpm macro. Needswork: * Package does not meet the following rubygem guidelines: - Package needs to own: %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems * The use of %dir and the wildcard * in the %files section seems suspect. %dir is used to tell rpm to only include the following entry as a single directory, not recursively traverse it. However, these entries seem to be used to list files, not directories so %dir should be removed here. * Additionally, the rpm does not appear to have any files in %{geminstdir}/lib and %{geminstdir}/conf so both of those entries should be removed. * Maybe a better URL: https://openshift.redhat.com/app/express * I cannot find the GPLv2 as a license anywhere in this package. I do find the MIT license though. So the license needs to be changed to MIT. * From looking at this package it seems that the things in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/bin/ or /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rhc-0.71.2/bin/ are intended to be run by end users. They need to have a presence in %{_bindir} for the user to invoke then. I don't know if the standard for rubygems is to move the files there or to have a small shell script that invokes the program in the %{gemdir} * Should everything in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/rhc-0.71.2 be marked doc? If a file is depended on at runtime, it cannot be marked %doc because the person installing the package may choose to exclude them from being installed. The yaml files, for instance, don't seem to be there for end users to read... will removing them when installing the package break something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review