Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rubygem-gpgme/rubygem-gpgme.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rubygem-gpgme/rubygem-gpgme-2.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Ruby-GPGME is a Ruby language binding for GPGME (GnuPG Made Easy). GPGME is a library designed to make access to GnuPG easier for applications. It provides a high-level crypto API for encryption, decryption, signing, signature verification and key management. Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package should contains Requires: ruby(release). see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby - test suite is not run, despites being present ===== 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. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files. [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 %doc. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: 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]: 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- gpgme-doc [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [-]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_libdir} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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-gpgme-2.0.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm rubygem-gpgme-doc-2.0.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-gpgme-2.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so rubygem-gpgme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-gpgme-doc rubygem-gpgme rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so /lib64/libassuan.so.0 rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so /lib64/libgpg-error.so.0 rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so /lib64/librt.so.1 rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so /lib64/libdl.so.2 rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so /lib64/libcrypt.so.1 rubygem-gpgme.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so /lib64/libm.so.6 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-gpgme-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-gpgme rubygem-gpgme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libassuan.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libgpgme.so.11()(64bit) libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.0)(64bit) libgpgme.so.11(GPGME_1.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.2.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-gpgme-doc: rubygem-gpgme-doc rubygem-gpgme: rubygem(gpgme) rubygem-gpgme rubygem-gpgme(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-gpgme: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gpgme-2.0.2/lib/gpgme_n.so Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/gpgme-2.0.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1dbf483c70095b1f0b7a4037cceb70727d0beecc0d45cd2a18d0fc81f4903b56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1dbf483c70095b1f0b7a4037cceb70727d0beecc0d45cd2a18d0fc81f4903b56 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1060929 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Thanks for taking this review! (In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #1) > Issues: > ======= > - Package should contains Requires: ruby(release). > see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby That is for pure Ruby packages, so that they can be used with any Ruby interpreter (either MRI or JRuby). However this is a compiled extension for MRI, it doesn't work in JRuby, so it should just require ruby. > - test suite is not run, despites being present That's a good point. The test suite is failing for me with some bizarre errors so I will need to investigate some more.
Mark Chappel pinged me on irc about the fact that rubygem-gpgme 2.0.5 will download files from the web to bundle them : https://github.com/ueno/ruby-gpgme/blob/master/ext/gpgme/extconf.rb
Okay, thanks for the heads up Michael. It looks like there is a switch --use-system-libraries which is nice. I still haven't had a chance to go back and investigate why it fails after unbundling gpgme. I figured it must be some difference in behaviour between the system gpgme and the bundled one, but I couldn't figure out what.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The submitter account doesn't exist anymore, therefore this ticket will be closed.