https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384976



--- Comment #1 from Sandro Bonazzola <sbona...@redhat.com> ---
Only a partial review, but already contains things to be fixed.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0.spec should be rubygem-serverengine.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name


===== 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.
[!]: 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.
     Spec file contains wrong license id, should be: ASL 2.0
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
     License is not included in doc subpackage
[ ]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[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 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 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
     serverengine-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     %check just contain a pushd / popd, no test is actually executed
[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:
[!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /server/1384976-rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0
     /srpm-unpacked/rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-serverengine-doc-2.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiprocess ->
multiprocessor, multiprocessing
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/.rspec
rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile /usr/bin/env rake
rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile 644 /usr/bin/env rake
rubygem-serverengine.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiprocess ->
multiprocessor, multiprocessing
rubygem-serverengine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiprocess
-> multiprocessor, multiprocessing
rubygem-serverengine.src: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
rubygem-serverengine.src: E: invalid-spec-name
rubygem-serverengine.src:57: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 57,
tab: line 22)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile /usr/bin/env rake
rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile 644 /usr/bin/env rake
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiprocess ->
multiprocessor, multiprocessing
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/.rspec
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.



Requires
--------
rubygem-serverengine-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-serverengine

rubygem-serverengine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)
    rubygem(sigdump)
    rubygem-sigdump



Provides
--------
rubygem-serverengine-doc:
    rubygem-serverengine-doc

rubygem-serverengine:
    rubygem(serverengine)
    rubygem-serverengine



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/serverengine-2.0.0.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c14fb46e7681ebdc6138470f17b7bdac034b2e68c8a6b99afe440e56053337f4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c14fb46e7681ebdc6138470f17b7bdac034b2e68c8a6b99afe440e56053337f4


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 1384976
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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

Reply via email to