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=811286 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-11 16:01:00 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. Changes not documented [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /builddir/.gem/ruby/1.9.1/gems/rhc-rest-0.0.7/LICENSE [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ./bin/sample-usage.rb is MIT [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). geminstdir defined but not used. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. Does not claim mandatory ruby directories [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Claims ownership of %{gemdir} [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Installation fails on my not so clean F16 and a almost pristine F17 virtual host. [?]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. Installation problems might be caused by bad requires. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/mk/tmp/811286/rhc-rest-0.0.7.gem : MD5SUM this package : b3c3f7588bb2540cb690018f86322846 MD5SUM upstream package : b3c3f7588bb2540cb690018f86322846 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires) Package requires itself(!) $ rpm -q --provides -p \ ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-rhc-rest-0.0.7-2.fc16.noarch.rpm rubygem(rhc-rest) = 0.0.7 rubygem-rhc-rest = 0.0.7-2.fc16 $ rpm -q --requires -p \ ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-rhc-rest-0.0.7-2.fc16.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/env rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 ruby(abi) = 1.8 rubygem(json) rubygem(rest) rubygems rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /builddir/.gem/ruby/1.9.1/gems/rhc- rest-0.0.7/LICENSE. Use %exclude to fix. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. Does not claim mandatory directories: %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec %{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Claims ownership of %{gemdir} which belongs to rubygems. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. The format is actually OK, but you have not documented the changes. Each link you provide here should have s suitable changelog entry, and possibly also a release tag update. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ./bin/sample-usage.rb is MIT, creating a multiple license scenario. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). geminstdir defined but not used. I suggest that you just remove the definition. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Installation fails on my not so clean F16 and a almost pristine F17 virtual host. --> Running transaction check ---> Package rubygem-rhc-rest.noarch 0:0.0.7-2.fc17 will be installed --> Processing Dependency: rubygem(rest) for package: rubygem-rhc-rest-0.0.7-2.fc17.noarch --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: rubygem-rhc-rest-0.0.7-2.fc17.noarch (/rubygem-rhc-rest-0.0.7-2.fc17.noarch) Requires: rubygem(rest) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires) package requires itself(!) $ rpm -q --requires -p \ ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-rhc-rest-0.0.7-2.fc16.noarch.rpm [cut] ruby(abi) = 1.8 rubygem(json) ---> rubygem(rest) rubygems rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins: -- 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