https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654426 --- Comment #6 from Dillen Meijboom <info@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > - 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. Thanks! I should've checked this before submitting a review request. I implemented the %check stage which executes the tests of this package and updated the license to: BSD. As for the "hidden-file-or-dir" messages I'm not sure what to do, those files are required for the unit tests of the package. New Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/rubygem-xdg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00832214-rubygem-xdg/rubygem-xdg.spec New SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/rubygem-xdg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00832214-rubygem-xdg/rubygem-xdg-2.2.3-1.fc30.src.rpm -- 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
