Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-mime-types-data.git/plain/rubygem-mime-types-data.spec?id=45e8fa01d01655533d5774aa702b7ec9c42854f0 SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-mime-types-data-3.2016.0521-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: mime-types-data provides a registry for information about MIME media type definitions. It can be used with the Ruby mime-types library or other software to determine defined filename extensions for MIME types, or to use filename extensions to look up the likely MIME type definitions. Fedora Account System Username: vondruch Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14713918
I'll take a review!
Hi, I reviewed your files. # The points that I would like to ask you, are 1. Manifest.txt in "%files" section. Should it be moved to "%files doc" with "%doc"? 2. "filename" of the description. I got the warning from rpmlint, though I could understand you copied it from upstream README description. Should it be updated correctly? > rubygem-mime-types-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament > **Warning for "filename" of the description. Everything else is ok. # The result of fedora-review tool I just share the result of the tool. 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. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git /fedora-packages/review/1351575-rubygem-mime-types- data/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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. [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-mime-types-data-3.2016.0521-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-mime-types-data-doc-3.2016.0521-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-mime-types-data-3.2016.0521-1.fc25.src.rpm rubygem-mime-types-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament rubygem-mime-types-data.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-mime-types-data.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- rubygem-mime-types-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem-mime-types-data-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-mime-types-data Provides -------- rubygem-mime-types-data: rubygem(mime-types-data) rubygem-mime-types-data rubygem-mime-types-data-doc: rubygem-mime-types-data-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/mime-types-data-3.2016.0521.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7542bccff06d70c4ad94d1cf10b7dac6bd89958356e5d0d7f6447168c819be12 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7542bccff06d70c4ad94d1cf10b7dac6bd89958356e5d0d7f6447168c819be12 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1351575 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #2) > 1. Manifest.txt in "%files" section. Should it be moved to "%files doc" with > "%doc"? Ah, right. Missed that: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-mime-types-data.git/commit/?id=e4c1b6b15cc53ceafb69bee4061cf75943dd051c I hope you don't mind I am not going to update the SRPM etc, since this is just minor nit. > 2. "filename" of the description. I got the warning from rpmlint, though I > could understand you copied it from upstream README description. Should it > be updated correctly? > > > rubygem-mime-types-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament > > **Warning for "filename" of the description. This just missing from the dictionary, but I'd say that "filename" word is widely accepted these days, so I don't consider this worth of any action.
Hi, I understand and checked your comments for 1. and 2. . No problem. Please go a head.
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #4) > Hi, I understand and checked your comments for 1. and 2. . No problem. > Please go a head. You should change the "fedora-review" flag to "+" if you approved ... btw you should also change the state of the ticket to "assigned" and assign it to yoursefl, when you claiming the package for the review.
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5) > (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #4) > > Hi, I understand and checked your comments for 1. and 2. . No problem. > > Please go a head. > > You should change the "fedora-review" flag to "+" if you approved ... btw > you should also change the state of the ticket to "assigned" and assign it > to yoursefl, when you claiming the package for the review. Okay, I APPROVED it!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-mime-types-data