https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Simon A. Erat <erat.simon@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erat.simon@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Simon A. Erat <erat.simon@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Miroslav This is only a 'pre-review' and needs to be approved. -- Informal Review ---------------- * Valid License named in specfile: Artistic 2.0 * Missing License: Either as file or link in readme/manual of the package * Package fails to buld as noarch Is an 'interface' really required to be the same arch as the host-application - ruby? * ruby is named in specfile as requirement ##----!! Processing files: rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.2-3.fc19.noarch + popd + exit 0 Provides: rkerberos.so rubygem(rkerberos) = 0.1.2 rubygem-rkerberos = 0.1.2-3.fc19 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcom_err.so.2 libcrypt.so.1 libdl.so.2 libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8 libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8(kadm5clnt_mit_8_MIT) libkrb5.so.3 libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libruby.so.2.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) error: Arch dependent binaries in noarch package RPM build errors: Arch dependent binaries in noarch package Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/rubygem-rkerberos.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 361, in do raise mockbuild.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/rubygem-rkerberos.spec'] LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED ##----!! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gems should require rubygems package Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-rkerberos-doc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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. ---Its in: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib What does that mean? [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [-]: 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 field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/simon/1001728-rubygem-rkerberos/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/rkerberos-0.1.2 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems/gems/rkerberos-0.1.2, /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc, /usr/share/gems/gems [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 --they are in a -debug package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. -- cant tell, idk what ruby coders need to debug usefull [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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. Ruby: [x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated. [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [!]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- rkerberos-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. -- does not contain any license information but the spec info. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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 unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [-]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_libdir}, %{gem_spec} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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-rkerberos-0.1.2-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm rubygem-rkerberos-doc-0.1.2-3.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.2-3.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-rkerberos rubygem-rkerberos-doc rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so /lib64/libpthread.so.0 rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so /lib64/librt.so.1 rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so /lib64/libdl.so.2 rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so /lib64/libcrypt.so.1 rubygem-rkerberos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so /lib64/libm.so.6 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-rkerberos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcom_err.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8()(64bit) libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8(kadm5clnt_mit_8_MIT)(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.2.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby rubygems rubygem-rkerberos-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-rkerberos Provides -------- rubygem-rkerberos: rubygem(rkerberos) rubygem-rkerberos rubygem-rkerberos(x86-64) rubygem-rkerberos-doc: rubygem-rkerberos-doc Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-rkerberos: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib/rkerberos.so Source checksums ---------------- http://rubygems.org/downloads/rkerberos-0.1.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1ff4d8a4925ce6505812b26e247a2c272bc94299cd43a6860415590b5921c8d5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ff4d8a4925ce6505812b26e247a2c272bc94299cd43a6860415590b5921c8d5 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1001728 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- 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=uNbqAwIVM6&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review