https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858 Germano Massullo <germano.massullo@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |germano.massullo@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |germano.massullo@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Germano Massullo <germano.massullo@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [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: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- asciidoctor-pdf-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.17 starting (python version = 3.5.1)... 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 Mock Version: 1.2.17 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.17 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /tmp/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf/results/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-doc-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.noarch.rpm /tmp/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf/results/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /tmp/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf/results/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-doc-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.noarch.rpm /tmp/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf/results/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-doc-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25.src.rpm rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.0-0.1.alpha11 ['1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc25', '1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11'] rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asciidoctor-pdf 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(asciidoctor) rubygem(prawn) rubygem(prawn-icon) rubygem(prawn-svg) rubygem(prawn-table) rubygem(prawn-templates) rubygem(safe_yaml) rubygem(thread_safe) rubygem(treetop) rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf Provides -------- rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf: rubygem(asciidoctor-pdf) rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-doc: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://rubygems.org/gems/asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0.alpha.11.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3aaff2e49b99ea2f71f5b71645b166082a23bbac79a47940366fabe8835d5a1a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3aaff2e49b99ea2f71f5b71645b166082a23bbac79a47940366fabe8835d5a1a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n /home/fale/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx