https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060924 --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Instead of packaging all of %{gem_instdir} in one go, please break the %files lists out and use "%{gem_libdir}", "%exclude %{gem_cache}", "%doc %{gem_docdir}" like other gems in Fedora. %{gem_docdir} should go into a -doc subpackage. - Please run the test suite during %check or add a note in the comments to explain why the test suite does not work. - Mind filing a bug upstream about shipping the license text? "If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it." Also, Ruby's license.txt contains references to a file called "LEGAL" which isn't really relevant to the unicode gem, or the "BSDL" file, which is not included in the RPM. It would be great to just get that sorted out upstream in the gem. - Source1 can use HTTPS. ===== 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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See note above in "Issues" about using the gem_ RPM macros. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: 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 exists [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]: 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]: gems should require rubygems package [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: 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. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_libdir}, %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc %{gem_docdir} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. ===== 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-unicode-0.4.4.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm rubygem-unicode-0.4.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-unicode 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-unicode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libruby.so.2.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-unicode: rubygem(unicode) rubygem-unicode rubygem-unicode(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-unicode: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/unicode-0.4.4.1/unicode/unicode_native.so Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/unicode-0.4.4.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83011859e68928aa34cfec34fbb17ee54d74a64a7b258b10ee023e637dec88cf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83011859e68928aa34cfec34fbb17ee54d74a64a7b258b10ee023e637dec88cf http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5572bf03c3c8c4770e8153038f5f54faad9c3db9900864a7c82a19de4434d74b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5572bf03c3c8c4770e8153038f5f54faad9c3db9900864a7c82a19de4434d74b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1060924 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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