https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #11 from Jeff Peeler <jpeeler@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Should probably make summary and description match (use %{name} in both places instead of once using ${gem_name}). ${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/' %{gem_libdir} = %{gem_instdir}/lib Previous comment about cache still applies, but a better way: %exclude ${gem_cache} %{gem_spec} = %{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec %{gem_docdir} = %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version} As Vit pointed out, files section should start with "%dir %{gem_instdir}" Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [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 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is 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. [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (sshkey-1.3.0.gem) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ==== Language ==== [x]: MUST Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [!]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem. [X]: MUST Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: MUST Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: MUST Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: MUST Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: MUST Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: MUST Package contains Requires: ruby(abi). [!]: SHOULD Specfile should utilize macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_libdir}, %{gem_spec}, %doc %{gem_docdir} [x]: SHOULD Test suite should not be run by rake. [x]: SHOULD Test suite of the library should be run. Issues: [!]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.src.rpm rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/cache.ri rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-sshkey # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-sshkey = 1.3.0-3.fc17 rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(abi) = 1.9.1 rubygems Provides -------- rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm: rubygem-sshkey-doc = 1.3.0-3.fc17 rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm: rubygem(sshkey) = 1.3.0 rubygem-sshkey = 1.3.0-3.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://rubygems.org/downloads/sshkey-1.3.0.gem : MD5SUM this package : 40e9b0859fb9a1fab3f9b6b8d418d788 MD5SUM upstream package : 40e9b0859fb9a1fab3f9b6b8d418d788 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 -- 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