[Bug 1654426] Review Request: rubygem-xdg - dependency of new version of tmuxinator

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654426



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> ---
 - Run the tests



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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* BSD
     2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-xdg/review-rubygem-
     xdg/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
     xdg-doc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.

Ruby:
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
[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:
[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-xdg-2.2.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-xdg-doc-2.2.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-xdg-2.2.3-1.fc30.src.rpm
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/.index
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux