https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774
Michel Alexandre Salim <mic...@michel-slm.name> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co
| |m)
--- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim <mic...@michel-slm.name> ---
Almost there. Only issue (that's blocking) is with directory ownerships.
You had these:
%{gem_instdir}/bin/*
%{gem_instdir}/exe/*
Take out the /* part so the package owns the directory as well as the files
inside, otherwise the directories are not owned by any package.
There's also a nit about not packaging fonts in the documentation subpackage,
but that's a non-blocker.
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: "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1811774-rubygem-puppetserver-
ca/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-
ca-1.8.0/exe, /usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0/bin
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0/bin,
/usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0/exe, /usr/share/gems/doc,
/usr/share/gems
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
^ false positive, seems to match on the removal of other files
probably take off the -r since you're removing files not
directories
[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.
[!]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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.
[-]: 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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.8.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
rubygem-puppetserver-ca-doc-1.8.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.8.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
rubygem-puppetserver-ca.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-puppetserver-ca.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary puppetserver-ca
rubygem-puppetserver-ca.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line
51, tab: line 44)
rubygem-puppetserver-ca.src: W: invalid-url Source1:
puppetserver-ca-1.8.0-tests.txz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: no installed packages by name rubygem-puppetserver-ca-doc
(none): E: no installed packages by name rubygem-puppetserver-ca
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0.gem :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
3783e2d89a8652726166b0768aabcca670119c7166465ce430cdc9a1853c3bce
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
3783e2d89a8652726166b0768aabcca670119c7166465ce430cdc9a1853c3bce
Requires
--------
rubygem-puppetserver-ca (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/bash
/usr/bin/ruby
ruby(rubygems)
ruby-facter
rubygem-puppetserver-ca-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-puppetserver-ca
Provides
--------
rubygem-puppetserver-ca:
rubygem(puppetserver-ca)
rubygem-puppetserver-ca
rubygem-puppetserver-ca-doc:
rubygem-puppetserver-ca-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1811774
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, R, C/C++, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Python,
Java, Ocaml
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
