https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Simon A. Erat from comment #1) > Hello Miroslav > > Informal Review > ---------------- > * Valid License named in specfile: > Artistic 2.0 > * Missing License: > Either as file or link in readme/manual of the package There MUST be a copy of LICENSE within, in this case. Link within README would not be sufficient according to Artistic 2.0 "Permissions for Redistribution of the Standard Version" No. 2 "... provided that you duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers ..." You should add this as another SOURCE to spec-file: Source1: http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt copy it into src-tree `cp -a %{SOURCE1} COPYING` during %prep and include it for %doc. > * Package fails to buld as noarch > Is an 'interface' really required to be the same arch as the > host-application In this case yes, because it builds and provides a C-compiled interface. > ##----!! > 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 There you get it. C-compiled stuff :) > Issues: > ======= > - gems should require rubygems package > Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-rkerberos-doc > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems False positve from f-r. It is present, but with SCL-macro prefixed: Requires: %{?scl_prefix}rubygems > - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch > - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). False positive here, too. C-compiled interface. > [-]: 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? This can actually be marked as "PASS", because: * It is supposed for C-compiled interfaces to have no SO-Version. * Applies to *.so-files which are directly placed inside %{_libdir}, mostly. > [ ]: 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 This can be marked "PASS". Having no explicit license commented inside the file usualy means: Same license as in distributed LICENSE/COPYING. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Yes, obviously there is no license file.... > [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 This would need some more manual inspection... > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. LDFLAGS are not applied when linking obj to so. I'd usually recommend to have "%configure ||:" on top of %build, so all FLAGS get exported properly. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Can be marked "PASS". There seem no bundled files / libs or subsets of them. > [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required False positive. This is PASS. > [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package > --they are in a -debug package What??? The debug-pkg looks sane to me. It is the regular fashion that -debug contains a copy of all sources and the DWARF-part of the linked-binaries. > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. PASS > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > -- cant tell, idk what ruby coders need to debug usefull Having a look inside it should tell ;) There must be the sources and the DWARF-parts of every build binary inside. To me it looks good. ;) > [ ]: 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 What did you do to your system? None of these fail, if I run f-r of this. I'd recommend you to use some stock F19+ vm to run reviews on. The ExcludeArch thing is PASS btw. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines This cannot be. There acutally _are_ issues present. > [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). Is present, but the wrong way: %{dist} ---> %{?dist} > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. In fact for the Artistic 2.0 it IS required to ship it with the binaries. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- > rkerberos-doc There is for some unknown reason "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" in the -doc pkg. -doc pkgs should not have requires to main pkg, because I usually want to read the docs BEFORE installing any binaries or related. ;) > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > -- does not contain any license information but the spec info. See my comment above. > [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. Why do mark this as FAIL? Scratch-build on Koji shows it successfuly builds on all primary arches. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. It actually isn't. You should uncomment the testsuite in spec and append " ||:" to the command, so we can see at least which test are run and which fail. This is helpful to get a conclusion about what is wrong, if there's any. > Ruby: > [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. False positve. Present and used. > [-]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. > Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, > %{gem_libdir}, %{gem_spec} False positve. They are prensent and used. > [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. FAIL! It actually isn't. You should uncomment the testsuite in spec and append " ||:" to the command, so we can see at least which test are run and which fail. This is helpful to get a conclusion about what is wrong, if there's any. > [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Test run failed See my comments about modified environments above. And I don't think it's common practice to have CHANGES, MANIFEST, README inside %{gem_instdir}. Please remove them during install and include them as "regular" %doc inside -doc pkg. Same goes for: %{gem_instdir}/rkerberos.gemspec %{gem_instdir}/test %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile inside -doc pkg. What is a useful purpose for them? Don't forget to include COPYING into both pkgs (main and -doc). ##### Miroslav, please fixup the mentioned things: * inclusion of COPYING * proper export of C/LDFLAGS * %doc fixup And provide us with updated SPEC/SRPM, please. -- 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=DLExDqIfYu&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review