needinfo canceled: [Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.

[bugzilla]

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.

[bugzilla]

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.

[bugzilla]

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no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further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.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774

Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(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.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774

leinfeva leinf...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||leinf...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #1 from leinfeva leinf...@fedoraproject.org ---
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 

[Bug 1223774] Review Request: rubygem-aes - An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223774

Katharina sabel.kathar...@gmail.com 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