[Bug 1246974] Review Request: rubygem-shortURL - very simple library to use URL shortening services.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246974



--- Comment #5 from leinfeva <leinfeva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Thanks for the replies, i've update the spec and sprm file.

spec :
https://leinfeva.fedorapeople.org/pkg-gems/rubygem-shortURL/rubygem-shorturl.spec

srpm:
https://leinfeva.fedorapeople.org/pkg-gems/rubygem-shortURL/rubygem-shorturl-1.0.0-2.fc23.src.rpm

package-review output

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
- 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 %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE_txt.html is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/leinfeva/reviews/review-rubygem-
     shorturl/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does 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]: 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]: gems should require rubygems package
[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:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros:
     /usr/share/gems/gems/shorturl-1.0.0/lib, %exclude
     /usr/share/gems/cache/shorturl-1.0.0.gem,
     /usr/share/gems/specifications/shorturl-1.0.0.gemspec
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-shorturl-1.0.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-shorturl-doc-1.0.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-shorturl-1.0.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
rubygem-shorturl.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-shorturl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shorturl
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rubygem-shorturl.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-shorturl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shorturl
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
rubygem-shorturl-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-shorturl
    rubygems

rubygem-shorturl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    /usr/bin/ruby
    ruby(rubygems)



Provides
--------
rubygem-shorturl-doc:
    rubygem-shorturl-doc

rubygem-shorturl:
    rubygem(shorturl)
    rubygem-shorturl



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/shorturl-1.0.0.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
4ce879878999f4e5fe46f03fc8f3f2b16ada1a170f00785638cb1e371f870cd3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4ce879878999f4e5fe46f03fc8f3f2b16ada1a170f00785638cb1e371f870cd3


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rubygem-shorturl
Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]