https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Unofficial Review: 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. [!]: 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]: 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 /home/FedoraPackaging/rubygem-ast-tdl/2097267-rubygem- ast-tdl/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [?]: 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 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 ===== 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/ast-tdl-0.0.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c923acd1b9c53da3067330162a085b50a0b89baaa0a1d67feb529f53d6453733 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c923acd1b9c53da3067330162a085b50a0b89baaa0a1d67feb529f53d6453733 Requires -------- rubygem-ast-tdl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem-ast-tdl-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-ast-tdl Provides -------- rubygem-ast-tdl: rubygem(ast-tdl) rubygem-ast-tdl rubygem-ast-tdl-doc: rubygem-ast-tdl-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2097267 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, Haskell, Java, R, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) Can you check that this builds on Copr/Koji for at least x86_64,AARCH64 and ARM_hfp? 2) Possibly BuildRequires: ruby(release) should be changed to BuildRequires: ruby(release) >= 2.4.0 The gemspec of the latest version requires 2.6.0 3) Upstream recently added unit tests, if a new release will be made, maybe these can be added? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/ 4) Packaged does not seem to preserve timestamps, but this maybe common with Rubygems 5) Add a %license line to the spec file, see for example https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-mizuho/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-mizuho.spec. Do also add the license file to the gemspec https://github.com/firefly-cpp/ast-tdl/blob/main/ast-tdl.gemspec so it is included 6) Fonts are installed with the html documentation generated by rdoc, in particular Lato-LightItalic.ttf Lato-RegularItalic.ttf SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf Lato-Light.ttf Lato-Regular.ttf SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf Are these necessary? Lato1 fonts are packaged https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lato-fonts as are SourceCodePro fonts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts the documentation also has javascript. ri files are also produced and probably should not be packaged. These might be due to my build, but maybe something different needs to be done for generating the documentation. 7) Adding the recently added examples to the documentation is also helpful -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097267 _______________________________________________ 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
