https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658 --- Comment #3 from greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx --- Thanks for the review, comments below. New URLs: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-em-spec/rubygem-em-spec.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-em-spec/rubygem-em-spec-0.2.7-1.el7.src.rpm (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > 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 I see the BR for that, but I don't see the Requires explicitly stated. > > - "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. I pestered upstream and they made a 0.2.7 release that explicitly states MIT. Previous versions were declared MIT on Debian's mailing list. New package reflects the 0.2.7 version. > > - Changelog entries must contain contact information, including a name and a > (possibly obfuscated) email address. See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs Ah, artifact of gem2rpm. This should be corrected now. > > - 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. Corrected > > - Consider adding a %check script to run the tests. It appears that this is an issue upstream that has not received attention. This is the exact set of errors I get when executing the tests. https://github.com/joshbuddy/em-spec/issues/16 > > - The spec file URL does not correspond to the spec file inside the srpm; see > the diff below. Hopefully this is corrected now, with the 0.2.7 source tarball. > > - 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. Corrected to be exact equality. I do not plan to branch this into EPEL6, and the conditional can be expanded at that time. > > - What is the hidden file %{_datadir}/gems/gems/em-spec-0.2.6/.rspec ? Is it > necessary? It provides default options to be passed to the rspec command (a test runner for Ruby). That particular one does not provide any important options (--colour) and these options are not important at runtime. I've added it to the excluded list. > > ===== 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