[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-07-12 00:51:41 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-77685cbad3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-77685cbad3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-77685cbad3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-77685cbad3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-77685cbad3 -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-puppetserver-ca -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Changes look good. This review is APPROVED -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Breno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #11 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/el8-playground/epel-8-x86_64/01504103-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/el8-playground/epel-8-x86_64/01504103-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.8.0-1.el8.src.rpm Thanks! -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co
||m)
--- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
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.
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Breno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #9 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01421713-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01421713-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.8.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Thanks for the review, Michel. It should be fixed now. I also bumped the version. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co
||m)
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
So this is likely wrong:
%doc %{gem_instdir}/bin
%doc %{gem_instdir}/exe
They are marked as documentation but those two directories contain executable
files. `exe` actually contains `puppetserver-ca`.
--
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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- I can take this review -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 --- Comment #6 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01386059-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01386059-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.7.0-2.el8.src.rpm Description: A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Hi Terje Røsten, I think I understand your point now. I updated the changelog and I am also sharing my temporary repository so you can follow the changes closer[1]. 1 https://github.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-puppetserver-ca -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 --- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten --- Changelog is still: %changelog * Fri May 8 2020 Breno Brand Fernandes - 1.7.0-1 - First build it's not possible to see what changed and review changes, hence review can't continue. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 --- Comment #4 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01373667-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01373667-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.7.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Hi Terje Røsten, Thanks for the feedback and for noting the issue. It should be fixed now. Thank you. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten --- Can you please add proper changelog in package? 1.7.0 has just: %changelog * Wed Dec 18 2019 Breno Brand Fernandes - 1.7.0-1 - First build which seems wrong. If you include proper changelog and (increase release version on each update) it will be much simpler to follow changes and do review. Building + installing package works fine, however after install I get: $ /usr/bin/puppetserver-ca Traceback (most recent call last): 1: from /usr/bin/puppetserver-ca:23:in `' /usr/bin/puppetserver-ca:23:in `load': cannot load such file -- /usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.7.0/exe/puppetserver-ca (LoadError) Can you please look into that? (Tested on Fedora 32). If you could provide koji scratch build for rawhide it would help too. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 --- Comment #2 from Breno --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-in-epel8-testing/epel-8-x86_64/01339440-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-in-epel8-testing/epel-8-x86_64/01339440-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.7.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb thanks for the feedback. -- 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
[Bug 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Valid shorthand for License: Apache License, Version 2.0 is ASL 2.0
License: ASL 2.0
- Bump to 1.6.0
- Remove these in %install:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
- Mark as %doc:
%doc %{gem_instdir}/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 37
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-puppetserver-ca/review-rubygem-
puppetserver-ca/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are
