https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305669 --- Comment #3 from greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx --- Thanks for the review. New URLs for the files. https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-benchmark-ips/rubygem-benchmark-ips-2.5.0-1.fc24.src.rpm https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-benchmark-ips/rubygem-benchmark-ips.spec (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 As with the em-specs review, this appears to be a spurious complaint by the tooling. Requires: ruby(release) is not present in the spec file. > > - "A iterations" (in both Summary and %description) is not correct English. > That should be "An iterations", although I would just drop the "a" off of > the front of the summary altogether, and make that "Iterations per second > enhancement to Benchmark". This is copied from upstream's README.md, as auto-generated by gem2rpm. I have corrected the text in the spec file as it is unlikely that this will be updated via the automation mechanism and also submitted a PR upstream to fix the README.md file: https://github.com/evanphx/benchmark-ips/pull/61 > > - Regarding a license file, README.md does contain the license ... and other > stuff, too. Still, I think it is not a bad idea to add %license README.md > to the main package. I will not insist on this, though, if you don't like > the idea. I have added this. I have no objections to it. > > - Is the Rakefile really useful in the documentation? I can't say for sure, but it seems to be included by default in the gem2rpm process. It gives basic information about how the gemspec file is generated and how tests should be run. I have no objections to removing it if you'd like. > > - Version 2.3.0 is packaged, but 2.5.0 is the latest upstream release. Wow, 2.4.0, 2.4.1, and 2.5.0 have all been released since I created my initial package about a month ago. I've updated to 2.5.0. > > - Is the hidden file %{_datadir}/gems/gems/benchmark-ips-2.3.0/.autotest > needed? It does not appear needed for runtime. I've added it to the %exclude list. --Greg > > ===== 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]: 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. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have > unknown license. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [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]: 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 > rdoc did this, so we'll ignore it. > [!]: 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. > [!]: 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. > [x]: %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. > [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. > [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. > [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-benchmark-ips-2.3.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm > rubygem-benchmark-ips-doc-2.3.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm > rubygem-benchmark-ips-2.3.0-1.fc24.src.rpm > rubygem-benchmark-ips.noarch: W: no-documentation > rubygem-benchmark-ips.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gems/gems/benchmark-ips-2.3.0/.autotest > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory > rubygem-benchmark-ips.noarch: W: no-documentation > rubygem-benchmark-ips.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gems/gems/benchmark-ips-2.3.0/.autotest > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > > > Requires > -------- > rubygem-benchmark-ips-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > rubygem-benchmark-ips > > rubygem-benchmark-ips (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > ruby(rubygems) > > > > Provides > -------- > rubygem-benchmark-ips-doc: > rubygem-benchmark-ips-doc > > rubygem-benchmark-ips: > rubygem(benchmark-ips) > rubygem-benchmark-ips > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://rubygems.org/gems/benchmark-ips-2.3.0.gem : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 12443aa327d3129aa965244f79d7d5cb0f692f0f92ba7db76fba61526a40062e > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 12443aa327d3129aa965244f79d7d5cb0f692f0f92ba7db76fba61526a40062e > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1305669 -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