https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). This is for non-gem ruby packages only. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Compatibility - "OpenSource" is not a valid license name. The list of valid licenses is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses - I do not see anything in the upstream package that indicates a license for this package. This is a blocker. We must know that the code is released under a valid open source license. - Changelog entries must contain contact information, including a name and a (possibly obfuscated) email address. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs - I don't think the package URL is correct. The git repository at http://github.com/schmurfy/em-spec hasn't had a commit since 2010, and its releases stop at 0.2.2. This package's URL seems to really be https://github.com/joshbuddy/em-spec. - Consider adding a %check script to run the tests. - The spec file URL does not correspond to the spec file inside the srpm; see the diff below. - This conditional is not right: %if 0%{?rhel} <= 7 Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} %endif On Fedora, 0%{?rhel} evaluates to 0, which is less than or equal to 7, so the Provides is used. - What is the hidden file %{_datadir}/gems/gems/em-spec-0.2.6/.rspec ? Is it necessary? ===== 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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Some exceptions noted above. [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]: 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: [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]: 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. Note: Package contains font files This appears to be rdoc's doing, so not under the control of this package. [!]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-em-spec-0.2.6-1.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-em-spec-doc-0.2.6-1.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-em-spec-0.2.6-1.fc24.src.rpm rubygem-em-spec.noarch: W: invalid-license OpenSource rubygem-em-spec.noarch: E: useless-provides rubygem(em-spec) rubygem-em-spec.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-em-spec.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/em-spec-0.2.6/.rspec rubygem-em-spec-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license OpenSource rubygem-em-spec.src: W: invalid-license OpenSource 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rubygem-em-spec.noarch: W: invalid-license OpenSource rubygem-em-spec.noarch: E: useless-provides rubygem(em-spec) rubygem-em-spec.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-em-spec.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/em-spec-0.2.6/.rspec rubygem-em-spec-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license OpenSource 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/1305658-rubygem-em-spec/srpm/rubygem-em-spec.spec 2016-02-26 09:29:42.403255903 -0700 +++ /home/jamesjer/1305658-rubygem-em-spec/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-em-spec.spec 2016-02-08 10:00:16.000000000 -0700 @@ -23,8 +23,4 @@ %if 0%{?rhel} <= 7 Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} -Requires: rubygem(bacon) -Requires: rubygem(eventmachine) -Requires: rubygem(rspec-core) -Requires: rubygem(test-unit) %endif @@ -82,4 +78,4 @@ %changelog -* Mon Feb 08 2016 Greg Hellings <greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.2.6-1 +* Mon Feb 08 2016 root - 0.2.6-1 - Initial package Requires -------- rubygem-em-spec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(bacon) rubygem(eventmachine) rubygem(rspec) rubygem(test-unit) rubygem-em-spec-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-em-spec Provides -------- rubygem-em-spec: rubygem(em-spec) rubygem-em-spec rubygem-em-spec-doc: rubygem-em-spec-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/em-spec-0.2.6.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4163631f8bf572b20285e1610b12afe88aef96b4f90bf19154a2cc37b58e9c26 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4163631f8bf572b20285e1610b12afe88aef96b4f90bf19154a2cc37b58e9c26 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1305658 -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, 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