https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368850
gil cattaneo <punto...@libero.it> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo <punto...@libero.it> ---
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", "BSD (2 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)".
237 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1368850-rubygem-rouge/licensecheck.txt
All source files without license headers:
Please, report to upstream
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Please, add also License file in doc sub package
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems/cache,
/usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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-
rouge-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[-]: %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:
[!]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache},
%{gem_libdir}
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
===== 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-rouge-1.11.1-0.1.fc26.noarch.rpm
rubygem-rouge-doc-1.11.1-0.1.fc26.noarch.rpm
rubygem-rouge-1.11.1-0.1.fc26.src.rpm
rubygem-rouge.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pygments -> pigments,
segments
rubygem-rouge.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pygments ->
pigments, segments
rubygem-rouge.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pygments -> pigments,
segments
rubygem-rouge.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pygments ->
pigments, segments
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rubygem-rouge.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pygments -> pigments,
segments
rubygem-rouge.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pygments ->
pigments, segments
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
--------
rubygem-rouge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/perl
/usr/bin/ruby
ruby(rubygems)
rubygem-rouge-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
rubygem-rouge:
rubygem(rouge)
rubygem-rouge
rubygem-rouge-doc:
rubygem-rouge-doc
Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/downloads/rouge-1.11.1.gem :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
888974619e7c34d89baa34135bfa5fd7f9852ff2483c151229ccdad9d664558d
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
888974619e7c34d89baa34135bfa5fd7f9852ff2483c151229ccdad9d664558d
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1368850 --plugins Ruby -m
fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
