https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024168 --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The comment "# example/NeHe: KILLED (license unclear)" should read "examples/NeHe" with an "s". - examples/misc/OGLBench.rb and examples/misc/trislam.rb are licensed "GPL+ or Artistic". I think the -doc subpackage License should be "MIT and BSD and (GPL+ or Artistic)". We would also need to include a copy of the GPL+ license in the RPM. Eg. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.txt - Do we need to ship Manifest.txt? I'm thinking we could exclude it, particularly from the main RPM. - It's not immediately obvious why we need to use create-clean-opengl-gem.sh to regenerate the gem. Would you mind adding a sentence to the top of this script? "We need to regenerate the gem in order to remove files with unclear licenses." or something like that. - Please add %{_isa} to the -doc package requirements. Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Please remove the trailing whitespace after Requires: ruby(rubygems) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. No -devel package present or needed. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: See "Issues" above. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. GPL license text is missing from the -doc package. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ruby: [ ]: 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: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. GPL and Artistic licenses are missing. [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- opengl-doc [?]: 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. N/A: tests require Xorg. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 (not strictly required in GL). [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: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-opengl-0.8.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm rubygem-opengl-doc-0.8.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm rubygem-opengl-0.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-opengl-doc rubygem-opengl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-opengl-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-opengl rubygem-opengl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1 libGLU.so.1 libc.so.6 libcrypt.so.1 libdl.so.2 libglut.so.3 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libruby.so.2.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-opengl-doc: rubygem-opengl-doc rubygem-opengl: opengl.so rubygem(opengl) rubygem-opengl rubygem-opengl(x86-32) Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-opengl: /usr/lib/gems/ruby/opengl-0.8.0/lib/opengl/opengl.so Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1024168 Buildroot used: fedora-19-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review