needinfo canceled: [Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Package Review has canceled Package Review 's request for Katharina 's needinfo: Bug 1223774: Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774 --- Comment #6 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. ___ 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
[Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/ decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Version|22 |rawhide Resolution|EOL |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- Something what should not be closed. -- 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
[Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/ decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774 Fedora End Of Life changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed||2016-07-19 15:34:43 --- Comment #3 from Fedora End Of Life --- Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- 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
[Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch --- (In reply to leinfeva from comment #1) > * Please add Requires: rubygems to %package doc section > - gems should require rubygems package > Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-aes-doc > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems Not sure where this comes from. But this is definitely not needed (unless you prove me wrong of course ;) > rubygem-aes-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gems/gems/aes-0.5.0/.document This is one issue pointed out by rpmlint I'd like to highlight. And there is no test suite executed. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774 leinfeva changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leinf...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from leinfeva --- Hello, this is a informal review, cuz' i can't sponsor you but i hope that this info can be useful for you. Suggestions: * Please add Requires: rubygems to %package doc section * Change the name of the spec file to => rubygem-aes.spec * The summary can't finish with a dot please erase this. * Some errors according to en_US * The description line is to long (max 80 characters for line) Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - gems should require rubygems package Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-aes-doc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). - 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. Note: License file LICENSE_txt.html is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: aes-0.5.0.spec should be rubygem-aes.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name = MUST items = Generic: [ ]: 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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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]: 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: [ ]: 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-de
[Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774 Katharina changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |22 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review