Hide Forgot
Description: Net-DNS is a pure Ruby DNS library, with a clean OO interface and an extensible API. Spec: https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns.spec Source RPM: https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm FAS name: germano
TODO list: - Add LICENSE file - Align spec file inside and outside the sprm package 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: [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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net- dns/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [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- net-dns-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [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]: 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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-net-dns-doc-0.8.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-net-dns-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL rubygem-net-dns.src: W: invalid-license BSDL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-net-dns-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net-dns/srpm/rubygem-net-dns.spec 2016-07-04 21:55:07.924777404 +0100 +++ /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net-dns/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-net-dns.spec 2016-06-20 10:35:04.000000000 +0100 @@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Pure Ruby DNS library +Group: Development/Languages License: BSDL URL: http://github.com/bluemonk/net-dns @@ -21,4 +22,5 @@ %package doc Summary: Documentation for %{name} +Group: Documentation Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} BuildArch: noarch Requires -------- rubygem-net-dns (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env ruby(rubygems) rubygem-net-dns-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-net-dns Provides -------- rubygem-net-dns: rubygem(net-dns) rubygem-net-dns rubygem-net-dns-doc: rubygem-net-dns-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/net-dns-0.8.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c92df500b1c704bfbfed608f8b196c6fd50353c9b8eb8bd9bae0f906b7a1ca8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c92df500b1c704bfbfed608f8b196c6fd50353c9b8eb8bd9bae0f906b7a1ca8a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1348162 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Also, The license should be "BSD" and not "BSDL" to comply with Fedora standard for shorts licenses names
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns.spec
The LICENSE file path is wrong in the %file section and the package does not even compile. Please DO TRY to compile your packages before submitting them for review (and also every time you actually change something in them).
--- rubygem-net-dns.spec 2016-07-18 17:47:52.000000000 +0200 +++ rubygem-net-dns-2.spec 2016-08-10 15:35:59.125471711 +0200 @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ %prep gem unpack %{SOURCE0} -cp %{SOURCE1} . %setup -q -D -T -n %{gem_name}-%{version} gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec +cp %{SOURCE1} . %build # Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file ================================= Now it works and it does compile https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns.spec
modified cp %{SOURCE1} . to cp -p %{SOURCE1} . to preserve timestamps. Thanks to Igor Gnatenko for the hint. https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns.spec
Ok, nice work. APPROVED!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-net-dns
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-833d9e7e85
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-da2233a0aa
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bc46bcc322
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.