https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978395 Christopher Engelhard <ce@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(oturpe@xxxxxx) --- Comment #1 from Christopher Engelhard <ce@xxxxxxx> --- The package is generally fine, with the exception of the bundled fonts. Ideally these would be packaged as a normal font package instead. Since this is both a SHOULD & a lot of work, I'm fine with leaving them in. However in that case, their license (SIL Open Font License (OFL)) needs to be added to the spec. Sidenote: Any idea why fedora-review complains about %gem_install not being used when it clearly is? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - (MUST) The included fonts files are OFL licensed, this should be added to the license field. Alternatively: - (SHOULD) The package contains two google fonts in its documentation that could in principle be unbundled. - (COMMENT) Disttag & changelog will be autogenerated in the final package via rpmautospec. The required macros are present & correctly applied. I have disregarded issues & rpmlint messages related to this. - (COMMENT) Further non-issue comments below, enclosed in **** ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. **** The included fonts are OFL **** [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/doc, /usr/share/gems **** These are provided by ruby(rubygems), which is an (implicit, automatically generated) dependency of this package. This is OK. **** [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: Changelog in prescribed format. **** Changelog is created by rpmautospec **** [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: 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 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]: 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. **** Documentation is split off **** [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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-sync-0.5.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rubygem-sync-doc-0.5.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rubygem-sync-0.5.0-1.fc35.src.rpm rubygem-sync.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-sync.src:80: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog **** this is due to the use of rpmautospec & OK **** rubygem-sync.src: W: invalid-url Source1: rubygem-sync-0.5.0-specs.tgz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/sync-0.5.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 668356cc07c59ac7ed9ecf34fec3929831f179c07adb1f3e1c3b7a1609a638fd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 668356cc07c59ac7ed9ecf34fec3929831f179c07adb1f3e1c3b7a1609a638fd Requires -------- rubygem-sync (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem-sync-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-sync Provides -------- rubygem-sync: rubygem(sync) rubygem-sync rubygem-sync-doc: rubygem-sync-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1978395 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ruby Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Python, R 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
