Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915009 --- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod <relrod@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Here's a first go - Biggest thing is incorrect `License:` field. Other than that, a few rpmlint messages that should be fairly easy to fix. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - License field seems off. https://github.com/ickymettle/ruby-pcap/blob/master/COPYING is GPLv2. - rpmlint messages ===== MUST items ===== 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]: %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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). Ruby: [x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Ruby: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [-]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-ruby-pcap-0.7.8-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm rubygem-ruby-pcap-doc-0.7.8-1.fc17.noarch.rpm rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ruby interface to LBL Packet Capture library. rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: no-documentation rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/gems/gems/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/.gitignore rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-ruby-pcap rubygem-ruby-pcap-doc rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ruby interface to LBL Packet Capture library. rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so /lib64/librt.so.1 rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so /lib64/libdl.so.2 rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so /lib64/libcrypt.so.1 rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so /lib64/libm.so.6 rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: W: no-documentation rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/gems/gems/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/.gitignore rubygem-ruby-pcap.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-ruby-pcap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.1.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby(abi) ruby(rubygems) rubygem-ruby-pcap-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-ruby-pcap Provides -------- rubygem-ruby-pcap: pcap.so()(64bit) rubygem(ruby-pcap) rubygem-ruby-pcap rubygem-ruby-pcap(x86-64) rubygem-ruby-pcap-doc: rubygem-ruby-pcap-doc Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-ruby-pcap: /usr/lib64/gems/exts/ruby-pcap-0.7.8/lib/pcap.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://rubygems.org/gems/ruby-pcap-0.7.8.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 932582986bfbfea29e8c66f3985a948f45af98320477ad8dd75237aab9fc3521 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 932582986bfbfea29e8c66f3985a948f45af98320477ad8dd75237aab9fc3521 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RByAvP6NXF&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review