https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> --- Hi(In reply to comment #1) > hiera.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, > plugging plugin is in very common usage I would say but I am happy to change to plug-in. I will change at next package iteration or before import. > hiera.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8} Yes its hard coded but I've hard coded also the operating systems also when I use the path. For non specified list of OSes, rhel>=7 and fc>=17 it will use a variable %{ruby_vendorlibdir} as supplied by ruby-devel. > Maybe http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#ruby_applications is > useful. > These guidelines also specify that ruby applications should be installed > into %{_datadir} I don't think this is an "application" as such but a non-gem package with a single executable. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Non-Gem_Packages Other applications e.g puppet will run a 'require hiera' So the library installs in '%{ruby_vendorlibdir}' which on rhel>=7 or fc>=17 is set to /usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby which is of course inside %{_datadir} of course. But on fc<17 or rhel<17 then modules have been installed in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 as far as I can tell hence the hard code of this variable. Steve. > Review: > ------- > [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [!] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. > [!] Package consistently uses macros. > [x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x] PreReq is not used. > [x] Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x] Buildroot is correct > (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). > [x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning > of %install. > [x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't > work. > [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [-] The spec file handles locales properly. > [x] Changelog in prescribed format. > [-] Rpmlint output is silent. > [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > [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 %doc. > [-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x] Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > MD5SUM this package : 429f5bb30834183b3a3b7237e636364b > MD5SUM upstream package : 429f5bb30834183b3a3b7237e636364b > [-] Compiler flags are appropriate. > Nothing to compile > [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x] Permissions on files are set properly. > [x] Each %files section contains %defattr. > [x] No %config files under /usr. > [x] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using > desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. > [-] Package contains a valid .desktop file. > [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. > [-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. > [x] File names are valid UTF-8. > [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x] Package contains no bundled libraries. > [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. > [x] Package contains no static executables. > [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. > [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). > [-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > package contains only scripts > [x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > [x] Package does not generate any conflict. > [x] Package does not contains kernel modules. > [x] Package is not relocatable. > [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported architecture. > [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x] Package installs properly. > [x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. -- 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