Bug 1117022

Hi,

Here is an informal review of the package - this is my second informal review, so I'm hardly an expert.

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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /export/home/dnichols/fr/1117022-rubygem-
     combustion/licensecheck.txt

Here are the contents of licensecheck.txt:

Unknown or generated
--------------------
combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion.rb
combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion/application.rb
combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion/database.rb
combustion-0.5.1/lib/combustion/generator.rb
combustion-0.5.1/templates/routes.rb
combustion-0.5.1/templates/schema.rb

The package includes a LICENSE file that reflects the MIT license for the overall package.

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

You have your doc package requiring the base package, but let me quote a more experienced reviewer about this:

"Plain documentation packages (which contain files that can be displayed with arbitrary HTML/PDF viewers) typically do not need to depend on base libraries, or else you could not install the documentation without pulling in dependency bloat." (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691#c7)

Therefore I believe you should remove the dependency on the main package and include %doc %{gem_instdir}/LICENCE in the %files doc section; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing 
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
     /usr/share/gems/doc

I assume this is OK in this case

[-]: 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.
[X]: 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.
[-]: 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

Ruby:
[X]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
     independent under %{gem_dir}.

Generic:
[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).
[?]: 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.
[X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.

I assume that it's OK if there is no available no test suite:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites

[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

[X]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.

I don't know why fedora-review reported this as failed - the spec file does use it.

[?]: Test suite of the library should be run.

as per above

[?]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache},
     %{gem_spec}

These are included in the specfile, so I'm not sure what fedora-review is reporting here.

There is only one rpmlint warning:
rubygem-combustion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary combust

I assume this is not a blocker.

Note that I only included fedora-review items above where the result was not OK or incorrect from my point of view in the fedora-review output.

Hope this helps,
David

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.