https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150152 František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - srpm file differs from spec file, the spec file has already fixed issues: - W: invalid-license MPL2 in Licence field - W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir} - (not an issue) comment about C extensions is not 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". 5 files have unknown license. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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. 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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. Note: ruby -e "require 'checkpoint'" OK [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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: [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [-]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-0.1.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-doc-0.1.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-0.1.4-1.fc22.src.rpm rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2 rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2 rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.src: W: invalid-license MPL2 rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.src:54: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoi nt-doc rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2 rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REVIEWS/rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint/1150152-rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint/srpm/rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.spec 2014-10-07 22:54:09.450305596 +0200 +++ /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REVIEWS/rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint/1150152-rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint.spec 2014-10-07 14:58:16.000000000 +0200 @@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ Summary: Internal HashiCorp service to check version information Group: Development/Languages -License: MPLv2.0 +License: MPL2 URL: http://www.hashicorp.com Source0: https://rubygems.org/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem @@ -52,5 +52,5 @@ # Run the test suite #%%check -#pushd .%%{gem_instdir} +#pushd .%{gem_instdir} #rspec spec #popd Requires -------- rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint Provides -------- rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint: rubygem(hashicorp-checkpoint) rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-doc: rubygem-hashicorp-checkpoint-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/hashicorp-checkpoint-0.1.4.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f5b0c3c303de1e2a5e7b49a8cd70dbc55ad64257c49b9f6cf817772b277b5097 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f5b0c3c303de1e2a5e7b49a8cd70dbc55ad64257c49b9f6cf817772b277b5097 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1150152 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 === Approved! Be careful during import the spec file is now more actual than the srpm. -- 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