https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933464 --- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca <dcavalca@xxxxxx> --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/1933464-rubygem- sugarjar/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %doc %{gem_docdir} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: gems should not require rubygems package [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: sugarjar-0.0.9-3.fc35.noarch.rpm rubygem-sugarjar-0.0.9-3.fc35.src.rpm sugarjar.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub sugarjar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base sugarjar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads sugarjar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sj rubygem-sugarjar.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub rubygem-sugarjar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base rubygem-sugarjar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads rubygem-sugarjar.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension rubygem-sugarjar-0.0.9-specs.tar.gz rubygem-sugarjar.src: W: invalid-url Source1: rubygem-sugarjar-0.0.9-specs.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sugarjar.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub sugarjar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base sugarjar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads sugarjar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sj 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/downloads/sugarjar-0.0.9.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f15303be359c3c407abb7d350d78167b5dc8178d65f847edf49e663bb3b01e65 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f15303be359c3c407abb7d350d78167b5dc8178d65f847edf49e663bb3b01e65 Requires -------- sugarjar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ruby git hub ruby(rubygems) rubygem(mixlib-log) rubygem(mixlib-shellout) rubygem(pastel) Provides -------- sugarjar: rubygem(sugarjar) sugarjar Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/a/1933464-rubygem-sugarjar/srpm/rubygem-sugarjar.spec 2021-03-10 08:46:52.573469876 -0800 +++ /tmp/a/1933464-rubygem-sugarjar/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-sugarjar.spec 2021-03-09 23:50:59.000000000 -0800 @@ -67,5 +67,5 @@ %clean -rm -rf %{buildroot} +rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %files -n sugarjar Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1933464 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ruby Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Java, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
