[Bug 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-rkerberos New Branches: epel7 Owners: domcleal InitialCC: msuchy To resolve bug #1234260 -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.3-2.f |rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.3-2.f |c19 |c20 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.3-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Assignee|bjoern.es...@gmail.com |erat.si...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=v97tF8abiHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Simon A. Erat from comment #1)
Hello Miroslav
Informal Review
* Valid License named in specfile:
Artistic 2.0
* Missing License:
Either as file or link in readme/manual of the package
There MUST be a copy of LICENSE within, in this case. Link within README would
not be sufficient according to Artistic 2.0 Permissions for Redistribution of
the Standard Version No. 2 ... provided that you duplicate all of the
original copyright notices and associated disclaimers ...
You should add this as another SOURCE to spec-file:
Source1: http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
copy it into src-tree `cp -a %{SOURCE1} COPYING` during %prep and include it
for %doc.
* Package fails to buld as noarch
Is an 'interface' really required to be the same arch as the
host-application
In this case yes, because it builds and provides a C-compiled interface.
##!!
Processing files: rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.2-3.fc19.noarch
+ popd
+ exit 0
Provides: rkerberos.so rubygem(rkerberos) = 0.1.2 rubygem-rkerberos =
0.1.2-3.fc19
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests)
= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcom_err.so.2 libcrypt.so.1 libdl.so.2
libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8 libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8(kadm5clnt_mit_8_MIT)
libkrb5.so.3 libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1
libruby.so.2.0 rtld(GNU_HASH)
error: Arch dependent binaries in noarch package
There you get it. C-compiled stuff :)
Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-rkerberos-doc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
False positve from f-r. It is present, but with SCL-macro prefixed:
Requires: %{?scl_prefix}rubygems
- Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
False positive here, too. C-compiled interface.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
---Its in: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib
What does that mean?
This can actually be marked as PASS, because:
* It is supposed for C-compiled interfaces to have no SO-Version.
* Applies to *.so-files which are directly placed inside %{_libdir}, mostly.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of
licensecheck in /home/simon/1001728-rubygem-rkerberos/licensecheck.txt
This can be marked PASS. Having no explicit license commented inside the
file usualy means: Same license as in distributed LICENSE/COPYING.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Yes, obviously there is no license file
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/gems/gems/rkerberos-0.1.2, /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc, /usr/share/gems/gems
This would need some more manual inspection...
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
LDFLAGS are not applied when linking obj to so. I'd usually recommend to have
%configure ||: on top of %build, so all FLAGS get exported properly.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Can be marked PASS. There seem no bundled files / libs or subsets of them.
[ ]: 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. This is PASS.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
--they are in a -debug package
What??? The debug-pkg looks sane to me. It is the regular fashion that -debug
contains a copy of all sources and the DWARF-part of the linked-binaries.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
PASS
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
-- cant tell, idk what ruby coders need to debug usefull
Having a look inside it should tell ;) There must be the sources and the
DWARF-parts of every build binary inside. To me it looks good. ;)
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a
[Bug 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=60MTBzVXara=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001728] Review Request: rubygem-rkerberos - A Ruby interface for the the Kerberos library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001728
Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erat.si...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com ---
Hello Miroslav
This is only a 'pre-review' and needs to be approved.
--
Informal Review
* Valid License named in specfile:
Artistic 2.0
* Missing License:
Either as file or link in readme/manual of the package
* Package fails to buld as noarch
Is an 'interface' really required to be the same arch as the host-application
- ruby?
* ruby is named in specfile as requirement
##!!
Processing files: rubygem-rkerberos-0.1.2-3.fc19.noarch
+ popd
+ exit 0
Provides: rkerberos.so rubygem(rkerberos) = 0.1.2 rubygem-rkerberos =
0.1.2-3.fc19
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) =
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcom_err.so.2 libcrypt.so.1 libdl.so.2
libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8 libkadm5clnt_mit.so.8(kadm5clnt_mit_8_MIT) libkrb5.so.3
libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libruby.so.2.0
rtld(GNU_HASH)
error: Arch dependent binaries in noarch package
RPM build errors:
Arch dependent binaries in noarch package
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/rubygem-rkerberos.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py, line
70, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py, line 361, in do
raise mockbuild.exception.Error, (Command failed. See logs for output.\n #
%s % (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/rubygem-rkerberos.spec']
LEAVE do -- EXCEPTION RAISED
##!!
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-rkerberos-doc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
- Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
---Its in: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rkerberos-0.1.2/lib
What does that mean?
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/simon/1001728-rubygem-rkerberos/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/rkerberos-0.1.2
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/gems/gems/rkerberos-0.1.2, /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc, /usr/share/gems/gems
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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
--they are in a -debug package
[ ]: 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
