https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894482 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(misc@xxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #21 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- A few issue to fix, once they are fixed, i will approve the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. This part couldn't be tested because of a bug in openshift-broker rpm, see #1033928 - mocha is not really used or needed, so it should be dropped from Requires - same goes for json, not used anywhere in the code, should be dropped in gemspec and Requires ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. 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 [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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== 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). [-]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_libdir}, %{gem_spec}, %exclude %{gem_cache} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-1.10.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-doc-1.10.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-1.10.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openshift-origin-broker ruby(release) rubygem(json) rubygem(krb5-auth) rubygem(mocha) rubygem(openshift-origin-common) rubygem(openshift-origin-controller) rubygems rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos Provides -------- rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos: rubygem(openshift-origin-auth-kerberos) rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-doc: rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://mirror.openshift.com/pub/openshift-origin/source/rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-kerberos/openshift-origin-auth-kerberos-1.10.2.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fbadb7ca0f31e265cefbac857cf88f6eb74d7cde6bb4e630982b7452fdae0e6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fbadb7ca0f31e265cefbac857cf88f6eb74d7cde6bb4e630982b7452fdae0e6b Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 894482 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review