[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-21 05:56:07 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #31 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Hi, I have step in :) (In reply to comment #26) rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f Using ? in an API name doesn't seem to make much sense (the decoded %3f). Is there some rationale for upstream using this in the documentation name? I'd generally say this is not a valid character for a filename. Please work with upstream to fix this problem. If this is a common issue with ruby libraries, please file an rpmlint bug in bugzilla with the idea that % encoding in RI doc files should be ignored. This is common issue and I don't think upstream is going to change it, since they would need to change whole concept and it would break backward compatibility. rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/cache.ri Something about this file is wrong - it may be that the file is encoded in DOS format when it should be encoded in non-dos format. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line- encoding Please work with upstream to resolve these issues - they will annoy all distributions, not just Fedora. The RI files are actually binary files, created using Ruby's Marshal.dump. So this is false positive. Still these issues are not blockers, since the ? is escaped in the filename and passes UTF-8 encoding. And the other issue really looks like an upstream issue. If this is not an upstream issue, please file an rpmlint bug if this is standard operation in Ruby applications so that rpmlint can be improved. Both checks should be fixed in rpmlint and they are on my TODO list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #32 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #28) blocking issues - please correct at your earliest opportunity: [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. the doc package does not contain the license contents Actually this is not true and Troy has it right. Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #33 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-sshkey/rubygem-sshkey.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-sshkey/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
- License is in both packages
-- Regular %doc area for rubygem-sshkey
-- in %{gem_instdir} for rubygem-sshkey-doc
--- I figured that rpm contained all the other documentation that was in that
directory, so putting the License in there was sort of natural. Even if it
wasn't totaly necessary.
--- Thank you Vic for pointing out the subpackage section on Licenses.
- rpmlint issues
-- rpmlint is at fault and will be updated at some point.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #34 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Vit, Thanks for notes about rubygem docs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #35 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- PACKAGE APPROVED FOR FEDORA. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #36 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Troy, Congratulations - welcome to the packager group! The next step is to create an SCM request. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #37 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-sshkey Short Description: Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby Owners: tdawson Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #38 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f18 not yet branched. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #24 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- I have done two more informal reviews. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 I believe I am getting better at them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #25 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Troy, Your reviews look great, although missing rpmlint output and it looks like they were not run through mock. Still, I think you have a handle on reviewing. I will review your package in the next few days. Once the review is finished you will be added to packagers group and can submit an SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #26 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f Using ? in an API name doesn't seem to make much sense (the decoded %3f). Is there some rationale for upstream using this in the documentation name? I'd generally say this is not a valid character for a filename. Please work with upstream to fix this problem. If this is a common issue with ruby libraries, please file an rpmlint bug in bugzilla with the idea that % encoding in RI doc files should be ignored. rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/cache.ri Something about this file is wrong - it may be that the file is encoded in DOS format when it should be encoded in non-dos format. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding Please work with upstream to resolve these issues - they will annoy all distributions, not just Fedora. Still these issues are not blockers, since the ? is escaped in the filename and passes UTF-8 encoding. And the other issue really looks like an upstream issue. If this is not an upstream issue, please file an rpmlint bug if this is standard operation in Ruby applications so that rpmlint can be improved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #27 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/root/831749-rubygem-sshkey/licensecheck.txt
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
the doc package does not contain the license contents
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
The following directories are unowned in rubygem-sshkey package:
/usr/share/gems/gems/sshkey-1.3.1/lib/sshkey
/usr/share/gems/specifications
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (sshkey-1.3.1.gem)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #28 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- blocking issues - please correct at your earliest opportunity: [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. the doc package does not contain the license contents [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. The following directories are unowned in rubygem-sshkey package: /usr/share/gems/gems/sshkey-1.3.1/lib/sshkey /usr/share/gems/specifications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #29 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- blocking issues - License in subpackages - fixed, will be in next package release - own all directorys -- I'm not understanding why you say these directories are unowned. # rpm -qf /usr/share/gems/gems/sshkey-1.3.1/lib/sshkey rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-1.fc18.noarch # rpm -qf /usr/share/gems/specifications rubygems-1.8.24-1.fc18.noarch (rubygems is a requirement for rubygem-sshkey) -- am I missing something here? rpmlint issues: - seeing what I can do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #30 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Sorry the unowned dirs report was an error on my part. Please ignore. The other issues remain. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #23 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Version bumped. I believe everything else is in place. Spec URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey.spec SRPM URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-1.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint output: [me@vm-64f17]$ rpmlint rubygem-sshkey.spec /home/quake/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-1.fc17.src.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/cache.ri rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.1/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #18 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Just FYI: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/197 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #19 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Running fedora-review on my own packages I found one last bug (hopefull). I
didn't have %doc on my %{gem_docdir}. Updated spec and package at
Spec URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-5.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #20 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- I have updated my informal reviews including findings from fedora-review ... or actually failures from fedora-review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839653 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #21 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com --- The only thing I see left is to escape the %doc macro in your latest changelog entry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #22 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com ---
Actually I did find one more thing when going through this, 1.3.1 is the
current release. Should probably bump the version.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[X]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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.
[X]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/jpeeler/reviews/831749-rubygem-sshkey/licensecheck.txt
[X]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[X]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. NOTE: 1.3.1 released
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (sshkey-1.3.0.gem)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Should probably make summary and description match (use %{name} in both
places instead of once using ${gem_name}).
If you are referring to %doc description, then usage of %{name} is quite common
pattern for Ruby packages.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #13 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
So, I think I have my specfile fixed up with all of your (both Jeff and Vit's)
recommendations. Those macro's do make it look much better.
But I am not able to figure out this one recommendation
${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
Where am I doing that?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #13)
But I am not able to figure out this one recommendation
${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
Where am I doing that?
You are using ./%{gem_dir} on several places, while .%{gem_dir} should be
enough.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #15 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
OK, I see that now.
Those sections I took straight out of the ruby packaging guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
Maybe we should update that section so it is more consistant. So they are
either all one way or another. Not part doing .%{gem_dir} and part doing
./%{gem_dir}
But, either way, I'll update my spec.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #16 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Those sections I took straight out of the ruby packaging guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
Maybe we should update that section so it is more consistant. So they are
either all one way or another. Not part doing .%{gem_dir} and part doing
./%{gem_dir}
Ups, good catch. I'll discuss it with FPC. Sorry for confusion and thank you
for pointing it out :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #17 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- I have updated my spec and src.rpm file with the changes suggested. Spec URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey.spec SRPM URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-4.fc17.src.rpm Rpmlint output: [me@vm-64f17]$ rpmlint rubygem-sshkey.spec /home/quake/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-4.fc17.src.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [me@vm-64f17]$ rpmlint rubygem-sshkey rubygem-sshkey-doc rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
* You can use %{gem_spec}, %{gem_cache} and %{gem_docdir} macros instead of
paths such as %{gem_dir}/cache/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem,
%{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec and
%{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version}
* One showstopper is that you do not own the gem directory, you must place
%dir %{gem_instdir} on the top of your %files section.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com ---
Should probably make summary and description match (use %{name} in both places
instead of once using ${gem_name}).
${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
%{gem_libdir} = %{gem_instdir}/lib
Previous comment about cache still applies, but a better way:
%exclude ${gem_cache}
%{gem_spec} = %{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec
%{gem_docdir} = %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version}
As Vit pointed out, files section should start with %dir %{gem_instdir}
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST 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.
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (sshkey-1.3.0.gem)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Language
[x]: MUST Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[!]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem.
[X]: MUST Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: MUST Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: MUST Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: MUST Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: MUST Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: MUST Package contains Requires: ruby(abi).
[!]: SHOULD Specfile should utilize macros from rubygem-devel package.
Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache},
%{gem_libdir}, %{gem_spec}, %doc %{gem_docdir}
[x]: SHOULD Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: SHOULD Test suite of the library should be run.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
Rpmlint
---
Checking: rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/cache.ri
rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint rubygem-sshkey
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-sshkey = 1.3.0-3.fc17
rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ruby(abi) = 1.9.1
rubygems
Provides
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Vit, Thank you for the pointers. It took a lot of years to learn it the one way, might take some time to learn it the other. I went through my spec file with both the normal updated Fedora packaging guide, and the updated ruby packaging guide. I think I got everything, but it's possible I missed a thing or two. I have updated my spec and src.rpm http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey.spec http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.src.rpm [me@vm-64f17]$ rpmlint rubygem-sshkey.spec /home/quake/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.src.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/cache.ri rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #6 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Troy, Further review of this package is blocked on providing some package reviews of other people's package review requests. See Comment #2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpee...@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com ---
Troy, while waiting on an official review of your package I can give you an
unofficial one. I didn't find much to say though:
You need to exclude the cached gem in the files section:
%exclude %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
It looks like the doc warnings from rpmlint are ok.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #8 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- I have done two informal reviews. One on rubygem-slim and rubygem-stickshift-common. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839653 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 I can and will do more. But any comment on my reviews would be nice. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #9 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Thanks for linking the reviews. In the past we followed a template like: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706565 Your reviews look like a good first start, but since the Fedora community has automated some of the review process, I'd recommend taking a look at the tool: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ This will help you cover all the bases when doing a review for a new package request. Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Troy, Could you please check the Packaging guidelines and especially Ruby packaging guidelines and update yours .spec file according to them. I will just quickly point out a few keywords of interest: defattr, BuildRoot, macros from rubygems-devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- I forgot to say. This is my first review and I need a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Troy, I'll sponsor you. To join the packager group you need to be able to do the following things: 1. provide competent reviews of other people's packages 2. produce high quality packaging that passes the guidelines prior to review 3. help coach packagers on trouble points in their packaging Read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group A package should follow the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Since you have submitted a package, I will ask you in the bugzilla to review a couple other people's packages. While you are not a packager, you can still provide reviews to demonstrate you are capable of providing a review of a new package. To execute a review, you would follow the review guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Some example reviews I have done are here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.namelist_id=79500o1=equalsclassification=Fedoraemailtype1=substringquery_format=advancedemailassigned_to1=1token=1338582948-9534ec43e4e74cdb0393ec72859aedfebug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=MODIFIEDbug_status=ON_DEVbug_status=ON_QAbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=RELEASE_PENDINGbug_status=POSTbug_status=CLOSEDemail1=sdake%40redhat.comv1=fedora-review%2Bcomponent=Package%20Review Once you have given a couple high quality reviews of other's packages, I'll review your package submission and we will get it beat into submission for Fedora. Let me know what your ready to give a review of a few packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #3 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- To fix the rpmlint warning: rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US run fedora% sudo yum install hunspell-en You will want to do this before providing reviews. Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
