Spec URL: http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-1/rubygem-openscap.spec SRPM URL: http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-1/rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A FFI wrapper around the OpenSCAP library. Currently it provides only subset of libopenscap functionality. Fedora Account System Username: isimluk
An informal review by fedora-review: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/plautrba/1090188-rubygem-openscap/licensecheck.txt [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: gems should require rubygems package [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). [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [!]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %exclude %{gem_cache} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-openscap-doc-0.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-openscap.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-openscap.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-openscap-doc rubygem-openscap rubygem-openscap.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
(In reply to Petr Lautrbach from comment #1) > An informal review by fedora-review: Thank You! > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/plautrba/1090188-rubygem-openscap/licensecheck.txt You are right. I have fixed license tag from gplv2 to gplv2+. > [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. It actually does. The %gem_install is used in %prep section as adviced at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby > [!]: Test suite should not be run by rake. Yes, generally it is good to avoid rake because of new dependencies. However, in this case the makefile is very simple and does not bring any unneeded dependencies. > rubygem-openscap.noarch: W: no-documentation Documentation is to be shipped in rubygem-openscap-doc sub-package. > rubygem-openscap.src:55: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir This should be fixed in http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-2/rubygem-openscap.spec http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-2/rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Please review! Thanks!
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. COPYING is only part of -doc subpackage, please move it into the main package. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 It seems to me that these files are now in -doc, would it make sense to rename -doc to -devel? [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]: 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: gems should require rubygems package [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). [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. "Currently %{name}provides only a subset of openscap functionality." will it change in the near future? Is it needed to have it in description? [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. I'd probably use 'install' instead of 'cp' but it seems to be ok. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [!]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %exclude %{gem_cache} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-openscap-doc-0.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-openscap.noarch: E: useless-provides rubygem(openscap) rubygem-openscap.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-openscap-doc rubygem-openscap rubygem-openscap.noarch: E: useless-provides rubygem(openscap) rubygem-openscap.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-openscap-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-openscap rubygems rubygem-openscap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libopenscap.so.8 ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(ffi) Provides -------- rubygem-openscap-doc: rubygem-openscap-doc rubygem-openscap: rubygem(openscap) rubygem-openscap Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/openscap-0.1.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 943a6248fc88a599ea57b68c896a039f352818f41f06c44e8e759a106cc8526d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 943a6248fc88a599ea57b68c896a039f352818f41f06c44e8e759a106cc8526d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1090188 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Thank You for comments, Petr! I made the following changes: * Tue May 20 2014 Šimon Lukašík <slukasik> - 0.1.0-3 - Moved COPYING and readme to the main package - Created -devel sub-package out of -doc sub-package - Dropped the word 'currently' from the package description - Make a use of install instead of cp I have uploaded updated package at http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-3/rubygem-openscap.spec http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/ruby-openscap/0.1.0-3/rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-openscap Short Description: A FFI wrapper around the OpenSCAP library Upstream URL: https://github.com/OpenSCAP/ruby-openscap Owners: isimluk Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-4.fc20
rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-5.fc20
rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rubygem-openscap New Branches: epel7 Owners: isimluk