| Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-strptime - Fast strptime engine | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andrei Bardin <a15y87> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | didi, e, mrunge, package-review, vondruch |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-04-04 00:45:32 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Andrei Bardin
2016-10-14 13:45:04 UTC
SRPM URL returns 404 not found. I haven't done a proper package review in ages, and never a ruby package, but here's to get the process started: Below is the fedora-review output. I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name; the license should be just "BSD" (according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines); there is no test in the %check section (perhaps add rspec spec); -doc package bundles fonts generated by rdoc; and a few problems in the rpmlint section. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: rubygem-strptime-0.1.8.spec should be rubygem-strptime.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== MUST items ===== [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: 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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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- strptime-doc , rubygem-strptime-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /var/tmp/junk/rubygem-strptime/srpm-unpacked /rubygem-strptime-0.1.8.spec The spec filename should be rubygem-strptime.spec [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-strptime-0.1.8-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rubygem-strptime-doc-0.1.8-1.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-strptime-debuginfo-0.1.8-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rubygem-strptime-0.1.8-1.fc24.src.rpm rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C a fast strptime engine rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime.x86_64: E: useless-provides rubygem(strptime) rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: no-documentation rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/strptime-0.1 .8/.rspec rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/strptime-0.1 .8/.clang-format rubygem-strptime.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/strptime-0.1.8/gem. build_complete rubygem-strptime.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/strpti me-0.1.8/bin/console /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-strptime-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C a fast strptime engine rubygem-strptime.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime.src: E: invalid-spec-name rubygem-strptime.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rubygem-strptime-debuginfo-0.1.8-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rubygem-strptime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-strptime-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C a fast strptime engine rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-strptime.x86_64: E: useless-provides rubygem(strptime) rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: no-documentation rubygem-strptime.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/strpti me-0.1.8/bin/console /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-strptime.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/strptime-0.1.8/gem. build_complete rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/strptime-0.1 .8/.clang-format rubygem-strptime.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/strptime-0.1 .8/.rspec 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-strptime-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-strptime rubygem-strptime-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-strptime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/env 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) Provides -------- rubygem-strptime-doc: rubygem-strptime-doc rubygem-strptime-debuginfo: rubygem-strptime-debuginfo rubygem-strptime-debuginfo(x86-64) rubygem-strptime: rubygem(strptime) rubygem-strptime rubygem-strptime(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-strptime: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/strptime-0.1.8/strptime/strptime.so Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/strptime-0.1.8.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a2d328fb0fe124363950b2e4c05d9fe2991f62796b b8a589f249d3f67e6c6a52 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2d328fb0fe124363950b2e4c05d9fe2991f62796b b8a589f249d3f67e6c6a52 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn rubygem-strptime-0.1.8-1.el7.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, P HP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 (In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2) > I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name; This one should be ok: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines > -doc package bundles fonts generated by rdoc; This is long standing issue common to all rubygem- packages (bug 1224715). (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3) > (In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2) > > I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name; > > This one should be ok: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines How so? The spec file should be rubygem-%{gem_name}.spec not rubygem-%{gem_name}-%{version}.spec > > > -doc package bundles fonts generated by rdoc; > > This is long standing issue common to all rubygem- packages (bug 1224715). (In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #4) > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3) > > (In reply to Rich Megginson from comment #2) > > > I would say the biggest problems are the spec file name; > > > > This one should be ok: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines > > How so? The spec file should be rubygem-%{gem_name}.spec not > rubygem-%{gem_name}-%{version}.spec You are right of course. Sorry, my bad. I read just the first part of the message "Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec." and got confused ... 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. |