https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718 Pavel Valena <pvalena@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Pavel Valena <pvalena@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Issues ====== *** spec file * Is it necessary to unpack+rebuild the gem? ``` gem unpack %{SOURCE0} . . . gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec ``` instead of ``` %setup -q -c -T %gem_install -n %{SOURCE0} ``` * %description contains usage recommendations, which should be better included in README.Fedora file[1] instead of %description. * %files include ``` %{gem_instdir}/DEPLOYMENT.md %{gem_instdir}/Manifest.txt ``` which should be IMO in doc subpackages. *** build.log errors * In %build section there is ``` To see why this extension failed to compile, please check the mkmf.log which can be found here: /builddir/build/BUILD/puma-3.6.0/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/mkmf.log ``` But the .so is packaged. Is this false positive? * In %install section: ``` cpio: puma-3.6.0/usr/share/gems/gems/puma-3.6.0/ext/puma_http11/ext/puma_http11/http11_parser.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: puma-3.6.0/usr/share/gems/gems/puma-3.6.0/ext/puma_http11/ext/puma_http11/http11_parser.rl: Cannot stat: No such file or directory ``` Is this also false positive? References ========== [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description Result ====== * I have tested the package with a sample app. Works as expected. * Above are only recommendations. * There are no blockers, therefore I APPROVE this package. Legend ====== [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [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]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-puma-3.6.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm rubygem-puma-doc-3.6.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-puma-debuginfo-3.6.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm rubygem-puma-3.6.0-1.fc26.src.rpm rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-documentation rubygem-puma.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/gem.build_complete rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary puma rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pumactl rubygem-puma.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: rubygem-puma-3.6.0-enable-log-for-tests.patch rubygem-puma.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: rubygem-puma-3.6.0-update-testhelp-path.patch rubygem-puma.src: W: invalid-url Source1: puma-3.6.0-tests.tgz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rubygem-puma-debuginfo-3.6.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-documentation rubygem-puma.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/gem.build_complete rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary puma rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pumactl 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/puma-3.6.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 298d7b9122fd9c4aa78bf01d8a635122083963e53262975c0052862c87b7ace6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 298d7b9122fd9c4aa78bf01d8a635122083963e53262975c0052862c87b7ace6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, 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