https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117022 David Nichols <david@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |david@xxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from David Nichols <david@xxxxxxxx> --- Hi, Here is an informal review of the package - this is my second informal review, so I'm hardly an expert. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/dnichols/fr/1117022-rubygem- combustion/licensecheck.txt Here are the contents of licensecheck.txt: Unknown or generated -------------------- combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion.rb combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion/application.rb combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion/database.rb combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion/generator.rb combustion-0.5.1/templates/routes.rb combustion-0.5.1/templates/schema.rb The package includes a LICENSE file that reflects the MIT license for the overall package. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. You have your doc package requiring the base package, but let me quote a more experienced reviewer about this: "Plain documentation packages (which contain files that can be displayed with arbitrary HTML/PDF viewers) typically do not need to depend on base libraries, or else you could not install the documentation without pulling in dependency bloat." (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691#c7) Therefore I believe you should remove the dependency on the main package and include %doc %{gem_instdir}/LICENCE in the %files doc section; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc I assume this is OK in this case [-]: 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. [X]: 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. [-]: 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 Ruby: [X]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. Generic: [X]: 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. [?]: 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. I assume that it's OK if there is no available no test suite: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [X]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. I don't know why fedora-review reported this as failed - the spec file does use it. [?]: Test suite of the library should be run. as per above [?]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_spec} These are included in the specfile, so I'm not sure what fedora-review is reporting here. There is only one rpmlint warning: rubygem-combustion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary combust I assume this is not a blocker. Note that I only included fedora-review items above where the result was not OK or incorrect from my point of view in the fedora-review output. Hope this helps, David -- 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