https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361334 --- Comment #2 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, I reviewed it! Could you check it? If you have something to comment, please feel free to comment here. #1. LICENCE file. > Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rails/rails-controller-testing/master/LICENSE In the case of gem file that the upstream forget to put the LICENCE, though I did not put LICENCE file in the spec file. I think your idea is great to solve this case. However I think below URL is better. Because it is exactlly same with the upstream's LICENCE file. https://github.com/rails/rails-controller-testing/blob/v0.1.0/LICENSE And it becomes benefitable for you to report this issue (LICENSE file is not included in the gem file) to the upstream. https://github.com/rails/rails-controller-testing/blob/master/rails-controller-testing.gemspec#L15 They must rename LICENCE file after that. You can simlify your RPM spec file after the upstream's next version up. Also you can put its URL in the spec file as a comment. Ref. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rubygem-rails-dom-testing.git/tree/rubygem-rails-dom-testing.spec > License is not included in the gem file. > # https://github.com/rails/rails-dom-testing/pull/55 #2. Koji URL Next time not now, it is good habit to put the result of scratch build. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359224 > Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14979792 #3. files %files %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md You may use gem2rpm old version. You do not need to include README.md %files section. as you inlude LICENSE file in it. Remove below lines from %files, and move to %files doc section. I want to include below files doc RPM file. %exclude %{gem_instdir}/test/ %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile The reason is we want to reduce the base RPM's file size. And if it is not ".*" file, want to include doc RPM file. #3. Add below lines. near "BuildRequires: rubygems-devel". You can see the result of latest gem2rpm. BuildRequires: ruby(release) BuildRequires: ruby #4. Remove below line from %description doc. fedora-review warns for that. Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} #5. Use latest version gem2rpm Finally latest gem2rpm is covering above these things. I can suggest you can use master branch of https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm , though it is optional. Its generated template is the collection of our latest trend for the spec file. # the result of fedora-review 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git/fedora- packages/review/1361334-rubygem-rails-controller- testing/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [x]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- rails-controller-testing-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [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-rails-controller-testing-0.1.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-rails-controller-testing-doc-0.1.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-rails-controller-testing-0.1.1-1.fc26.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-rails-controller-testing-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/rails/rails-controller-testing <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-rails-controller-testing.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/rails/rails-controller-testing <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-rails-controller-testing-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-rails-controller-testing rubygem-rails-controller-testing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(actionpack) rubygem(actionview) rubygem(activesupport) Provides -------- rubygem-rails-controller-testing-doc: rubygem-rails-controller-testing-doc rubygem-rails-controller-testing: rubygem(rails-controller-testing) rubygem-rails-controller-testing Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/rails-controller-testing-0.1.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e597b0f4e8d04a76bd647c1e16dd276103f3adc70074ea0768bd3063fb28f11 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e597b0f4e8d04a76bd647c1e16dd276103f3adc70074ea0768bd3063fb28f11 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rails/rails-controller-testing/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c33e4bf9e0237d7cdf45f811acaafe4004a78c913fd5d39492fe22095b10290 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c33e4bf9e0237d7cdf45f811acaafe4004a78c913fd5d39492fe22095b10290 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1361334 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