https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344101 --- Comment #6 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, František Dvořák I reviewed it. I want to ask you below points. # Summary ## 1. > %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 > Requires: ruby(rubygems) > Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} > %endif Do you want to use this pacakge for rhel too now? Actually I am not confident that this 2 lines are correct for condition rhel <= 7. I can agree with your style if you are confident for the 2 lines. ## 2. > %files > ... > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/VERSION In my style, I prefer those is included to %files doc section (doc-rpm). My style is - *. gem_cache was excluded. - minimam files to run are included to %files. - Other text files are included to %files doc. because I like kind of same style with output of gem2rpm. However I can agree with you style too, as it is gray area. I want to respect your idea as much as possible if we have different style and it is not violation for the Guideline. ## 3. > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. Could you show me URL of Koji scratch build? # Detail fedora-reivew I will show you the result of fedora-review too, just in case. (I have waited until this package would be composed to rawhide to run fedora-review .) $ fedora-review -b 1344101 ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git /fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra- cross_origin/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 [x]: 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- sinatra-cross_origin-doc [x]: 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. [?]: 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-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc-0.3.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/britg/sinatra-cross_origin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/britg/sinatra-cross_origin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin: rubygem(sinatra-cross_origin) rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3eb1a9429ca9a58351d47bfd90236745f98203ee1572696d41de214a33a3c3bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3eb1a9429ca9a58351d47bfd90236745f98203ee1572696d41de214a33a3c3bf Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1344101 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