[Bug 1116024] Review Request: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions - Extensions for the Elasticsearch Rubygem.

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024

Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Not the latest version (0.0.18)

- License file LICENSE.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Package installs properly.
-- This is because this requires rubygem-ruby-prov (#1116021)
-- There isn't a rule that says you can't work on seveal packages at once. 
Let's see if we can get them both into fedora at the same time.
-- So, I would still pass this, as long at it looks like the dependency is
moving along.

- There is no %check section
-- This would require packages that are not yet in fedora
--- rubygem-turn (not really needed.  Dependency can be removed with 
 sed -i '/require.*turn/ s/^/#/' test/test_helper.rb
--- rubygem-elasticsearch-extentions (#1116030)
-- Since this is a *should* I would pass this without the %check section, but I
would highly encourage you to add the %check when the dependencies are in
fedora.


===== 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.

===== 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.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.13
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
/home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 24 install
/home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
/home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Requires
--------
rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)
    rubygem(ansi)
    rubygem(ruby-prof)

rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions



Provides
--------
rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions:
    rubygem(elasticsearch-extensions)
    rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions

rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc:
    rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
1be9ba36ddf2ccced4f970495d0cd43fd45f8498dcc552863a43540da3c9e03f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1be9ba36ddf2ccced4f970495d0cd43fd45f8498dcc552863a43540da3c9e03f


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1116024
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, 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]