https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873 --- Comment #4 from greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx --- Thanks for the review, new items listed: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra-1.2.1-2.fc24.src.rpm https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra.spec (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > 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 This appears to be the same problem as the other two reviews. > > - The Summary is much too long. Many tools that display package information > will cut half or more of that text off. Please try to think of a Summary > that > fits into much less text; e.g., "Sinatra plugin for asynchronous > responses". This was generated from the gem file. I've abbreviated it more appropriately. > > - British spelling is used in %description rather than American spelling. > See > the spelling output from rpmlint below. This text is provided by upstream. Is British/American spelling differences an issue? I can alter it if American is expected. > > - 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 tagged this as a license file > > - Is the Rakefile really useful in the documentation? > This is likely unnecessary, but the same as the other review. It is informative for conveying information related to packaging the gem, but not necessary important. > - One of the Requires for the -doc subpackage is /usr/bin/env. That appears > to > be due to Rakefile. If it is removed from the documentation, then fine. > Otherwise, should it be executable? Should it contain a shebang? There's no reason it shouldn't be executable, if we're leaving it in. > > - Is there any purpose in including the source files > %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.rdoc and %{gem_instdir}/README.rdoc in the -doc > subpackage when their processed equivalents are also in that package? I've moved the README.rdoc up to the main package and tagged it with %license. But where is the processed CHANGELOG.rdoc? I'm happy to remove it if you think it should be, but I've frequently seen those included as %doc files. > > - The spec file URL does not correspond to the spec file inside the srpm; see > the diff below. > > > ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 5 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. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [!]: 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 > This is due to rdoc, so we'll ignore it for 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. > [!]: 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. > [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: > [!]: 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-async_sinatra-1.2.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc-1.2.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm > rubygem-async_sinatra-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webservers -> > web servers, web-servers, observers > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A Sinatra plugin to > provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the > Sinatra framework running under async webservers > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > webservers -> web servers, web-servers, observers > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > utilise -> utilize > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: no-documentation > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> > sync, a sync > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sinatra > -> Sinatra > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > async -> sync, a sync > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > sinatra -> Sinatra > rubygem-async_sinatra.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a > sync > rubygem-async_sinatra.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webservers -> > web servers, web-servers, observers > rubygem-async_sinatra.src: E: summary-too-long C A Sinatra plugin to provide > convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra > framework running under async webservers > rubygem-async_sinatra.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> > sync, a sync > rubygem-async_sinatra.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > webservers -> web servers, web-servers, observers > rubygem-async_sinatra.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utilise > -> utilize > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webservers -> > web servers, web-servers, observers > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A Sinatra plugin to > provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the > Sinatra framework running under async webservers > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > webservers -> web servers, web-servers, observers > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > utilise -> utilize > rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: no-documentation > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> > sync, a sync > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sinatra > -> Sinatra > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > async -> sync, a sync > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > sinatra -> Sinatra > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. > > > > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- > /home/jamesjer/1310873-rubygem-async_sinatra/srpm/rubygem-async_sinatra.spec > 2016-02-26 10:31:08.692927514 -0700 > +++ > /home/jamesjer/1310873-rubygem-async_sinatra/srpm-unpacked/rubygem- > async_sinatra.spec 2016-02-22 14:06:43.000000000 -0700 > @@ -13,16 +13,17 @@ > BuildRequires: rubygems-devel > BuildRequires: ruby > +BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest) > BuildRequires: rubygem(rack-test) > -BuildRequires: rubygem(eventmachine) > +# BuildRequires: rubygem(hoe-doofus) >= 1.0 > +# BuildRequires: rubygem(hoe-seattlerb) >= 1.2 > +# BuildRequires: rubygem(hoe-git) >= 1.3 > +# BuildRequires: rubygem(hoe-gemspec2) >= 1.0 > +BuildRequires: rubygem(eventmachine) >= 0.12.11 > BuildRequires: rubygem(hoe) > BuildRequires: rubygem(sinatra) > BuildArch: noarch > %if 0%{?rhel} == 7 > -BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest5) > Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} > Requires: rubygem(sinatra) > -Requires: rubygem(rack) > -%else > -BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest) > %endif > > > > Requires > -------- > rubygem-async_sinatra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > ruby(rubygems) > rubygem(rack) > rubygem(sinatra) > > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/env > rubygem-async_sinatra > > > > Provides > -------- > rubygem-async_sinatra: > rubygem(async_sinatra) > rubygem-async_sinatra > > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc: > rubygem-async_sinatra-doc > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://rubygems.org/gems/async_sinatra-1.2.1.gem : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 5fe83dfab958ad6c0b2c9b4e2bfc6821f53f507dd0e7250afa4fb792b247f186 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 5fe83dfab958ad6c0b2c9b4e2bfc6821f53f507dd0e7250afa4fb792b247f186 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1310873 -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