Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/a15y87/d3aa9e890673897dee7e4936e8117ed6/raw/8d3c892e9bbfd239b8d04bc213202fd3b5a1b899/rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/a15/fluent/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00463759-rubygem-serverengine/rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: ServerEngine - multiprocess server framework dependency of fluentd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384934 This is my first package, and I'm seeking a sponsor. FE-NEEDSPONSOR Fedora Account System Username: a15
Only a partial review, but already contains things to be fixed. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0.spec should be rubygem-serverengine.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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. Spec file contains wrong license id, should be: ASL 2.0 [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. License is not included in doc subpackage [ ]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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- serverengine-doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. %check just contain a pushd / popd, no test is actually executed [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. Ruby: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: gems should not require rubygems package [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [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: /server/1384976-rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0 /srpm-unpacked/rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0.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-serverengine-2.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-serverengine-doc-2.0.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-serverengine-2.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/.rspec rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile /usr/bin/env rake rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile 644 /usr/bin/env rake rubygem-serverengine.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing rubygem-serverengine.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing rubygem-serverengine.src: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-serverengine.src: E: invalid-spec-name rubygem-serverengine.src:57: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 57, tab: line 22) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile /usr/bin/env rake rubygem-serverengine-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/Rakefile 644 /usr/bin/env rake rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiprocess -> multiprocessor, multiprocessing rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-serverengine.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/serverengine-2.0.0/.rspec 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-serverengine-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-serverengine rubygem-serverengine (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(sigdump) rubygem-sigdump Provides -------- rubygem-serverengine-doc: rubygem-serverengine-doc rubygem-serverengine: rubygem(serverengine) rubygem-serverengine Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/serverengine-2.0.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c14fb46e7681ebdc6138470f17b7bdac034b2e68c8a6b99afe440e56053337f4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c14fb46e7681ebdc6138470f17b7bdac034b2e68c8a6b99afe440e56053337f4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 1384976 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #1) > Issues: > ======= > - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). Only the resulting package, since this require is autogenerated. But there is explicit "Requires: rubygem-sigdump" which should be autogenerated as well and hence is not needed. And I'd like to add several more points: * Please execute test suite in %check section, if possible. * Please check the rpmlint output, which is part of the comment #1, especially the dot files in package, license of the package and mixed use of space and tabs.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.