Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SpaceKookie/packagereview/master/twofish-1.0.5.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SpaceKookie/packagereview/master/rubygem-twofish-1.0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Twofish symmetric cipher in pure Ruby with ECB and CBC cipher modes derived from an original Perl implementation by Guido Flohr. Fedora Account System Username: spacekookie
Hello Katharina, this is a informal review cuz i'm not a package sponsor but i can help you with your package :) first some details: 1- In your spec file * delete Requires: ruby(release) * add this => BuildRequires: rubygems 2. In your %files section * delete %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE 3- In %files doc section * Add %doc %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE 4- Rename your spec file to "rubygem-twofish.spec" 5- add the shebang (#!/usr/bin/ruby) to the files located in /data/test * benchmark.rb * test_twofish.rb -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the output of review This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.html is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: twofish-1.0.5.spec should be rubygem-twofish.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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- twofish-doc [ ]: 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]: 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: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude /usr/share/gems/cache/twofish-1.0.5.gem, /usr/share/gems/specifications/twofish-1.0.5.gemspec [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [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: /home/iplexsia/1223780-twofish-1.0.5/srpm- unpacked/twofish-1.0.5.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-twofish-1.0.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-twofish-doc-1.0.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-twofish-1.0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-twofish.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-twofish-doc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gems/gems/twofish-1.0.5/test/benchmark.rb rubygem-twofish-doc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gems/gems/twofish-1.0.5/test/test_twofish.rb rubygem-twofish.src: E: invalid-spec-name 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-twofish-doc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gems/gems/twofish-1.0.5/test/benchmark.rb rubygem-twofish-doc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gems/gems/twofish-1.0.5/test/test_twofish.rb rubygem-twofish.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-twofish-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-twofish rubygem-twofish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-twofish-doc: rubygem-twofish-doc rubygem-twofish: rubygem(twofish) rubygem-twofish Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/twofish-1.0.5.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd83bed00086da709606b8668b969509ff0d40abab8b5545efe2d805c9b2cf90 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd83bed00086da709606b8668b969509ff0d40abab8b5545efe2d805c9b2cf90 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1223780 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
>1- In your spec file >* delete Requires: ruby(release) >* add this => BuildRequires: rubygems > >2. In your %files section >* delete %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE > >3- In %files doc section >* Add %doc %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE This is not correct. And Katharina has it correctly. License should be marked as %license and you should require ruby(release).
Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
Something what should not be closed.