Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922460 --- Comment #4 from Ricky Elrod <relrod@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Two minor issues noted below. The first is a non-blocker, but SHOULD item. For the second, can you provide some feedback on the rpmlint warnings, for reference? After that, I'll approve. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Query upstream to see if they are willing to add a license file. - rpmlint isn't silent (only warnings, no errors) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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 [x]: 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 [-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: 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 must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. ===== 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. [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. [x]: %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. [x]: 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-syck-1.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm rubygem-syck-doc-1.0.0-2.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gemified -> Gentrified rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gemified -> gentrified rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-syck-doc rubygem-syck rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gemified -> Gentrified rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gemified -> gentrified rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so /lib64/libpthread.so.0 rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so /lib64/librt.so.1 rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so /lib64/libdl.so.2 rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so /lib64/libcrypt.so.1 rubygem-syck.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so /lib64/libm.so.6 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-syck-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-syck rubygem-syck (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.2.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-syck-doc: rubygem-syck-doc rubygem-syck: rubygem(syck) rubygem-syck rubygem-syck(x86-64) syck.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-syck: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/syck-1.0.0/lib/syck.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://rubygems.org/gems/syck-1.0.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36d8b19babe3435057ebe2baad2b4e27026b2e34e7d349c6d77cfd9dd48e0afa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36d8b19babe3435057ebe2baad2b4e27026b2e34e7d349c6d77cfd9dd48e0afa Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 922460 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- 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=mhRBdFQH2c&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review