Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-between_meals/rubygem-between_meals.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-between_meals/rubygem-between_meals-0.0.12-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Between Meals is the library for calculating what Chef objects were modified between two revisions in a version control system. It is also the library that backs Taste Tester and Grocery Delivery. It currently supports SVN, GIT and HG, but plugins can easily be written for other source control systems. It also includes some wrappers around knife execution and a few other utility functions. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60600524
Note: I've reuploaded the spec and src.rpm to fix the summary.
Package approved. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache License 2.0". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-between_meals/review-rubygem- between_meals/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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 [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]: 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 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [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-between_meals-0.0.12-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rubygem-between_meals-doc-0.0.12-1.fc35.noarch.rpm rubygem-between_meals-0.0.12-1.fc35.src.rpm rubygem-between_meals.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-between_meals.src: W: invalid-url Source1: rubygem-between_meals-0.0.12-specs.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rubygem-between_meals 1920719 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32690
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-between_meals
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32730 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32731 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32732
FEDORA-2021-0012652eb1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0012652eb1
FEDORA-2021-4053234654 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4053234654
FEDORA-2021-87a8dd3214 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-87a8dd3214
FEDORA-2021-4053234654 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4053234654 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4053234654 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-87a8dd3214 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-87a8dd3214 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-87a8dd3214 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-0012652eb1 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-0012652eb1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0012652eb1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4053234654 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-87a8dd3214 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-0012652eb1 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.