https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372999
Matthias Runge <mru...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge <mru...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
There is no such requirement in the package, the package requires
ruby(rubygems)
- 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-MIT.html is not marked as %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
The license is included, no need to include both LICENSE-MIT and
LICENSE-MIT.html
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 55 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/1372999-rubygem-http_parser.rb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
http_parser.rb-doc , rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Ruby:
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-http_parser.rb-0.6.0-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc-0.6.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo-0.6.0-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm
rubygem-http_parser.rb-0.6.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) http ->
HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb -> Rb,
r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http
-> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rb
-> Rb, r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) http
-> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb ->
Rb, r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US http -> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US rb -> Rb, r, b
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo-0.6.0-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) http
-> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb ->
Rb, r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US http -> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US rb -> Rb, r, b
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) http
-> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb ->
Rb, r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US http -> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US rb -> Rb, r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) http ->
HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb -> Rb,
r, b
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http
-> HTTP
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rb
-> Rb, r, b
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Requires
--------
rubygem-http_parser.rb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.1()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libruby.so.2.3()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ruby(rubygems)
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/ruby
rubygem-http_parser.rb
Provides
--------
rubygem-http_parser.rb:
rubygem(http_parser.rb)
rubygem-http_parser.rb
rubygem-http_parser.rb(x86-64)
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo:
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo
rubygem-http_parser.rb-debuginfo(x86-64)
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc:
rubygem-http_parser.rb-doc
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
rubygem-http_parser.rb:
/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/http_parser.rb-0.6.0/ruby_http_parser.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/http_parser.rb-0.6.0.gem :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f11d0aec50ef26a7d1f991e627ac88acdb5979282aeba7a5c3be6ce0636ed196
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f11d0aec50ef26a7d1f991e627ac88acdb5979282aeba7a5c3be6ce0636ed196
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1372999
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
