Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-levenshtein/rubygem-levenshtein.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-levenshtein/rubygem-levenshtein-0.2.2-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Calculates the Levenshtein distance between two byte strings. The Levenshtein distance is a metric for measuring the amount of difference between two sequences (i.e., the so called edit distance). The Levenshtein distance between two sequences is given by the minimum number of operations needed to transform one sequence into the other, where an operation is an insertion, deletion, or substitution of a single element. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Koji scratch build For F-19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4840559 For F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4840558
A few things with full revew to follow. I just question wether the lib cannot go into its own subpackage. /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2 /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein/levenshtein_fast.so /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein/version.rb Everything else looks good. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [x] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gems should require rubygems package Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-levenshtein-doc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- levenshtein-doc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). Ruby: [!]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [i]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Ruby: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_libdir} [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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-levenshtein-0.2.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm rubygem-levenshtein-doc-0.2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm rubygem-levenshtein.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/levenshtein-0.2.2/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-levenshtein rubygem-levenshtein-doc rubygem-levenshtein.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/levenshtein-0.2.2/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-levenshtein (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.1.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby ruby(abi) ruby(rubygems) rubygem-levenshtein-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-levenshtein Provides -------- rubygem-levenshtein: levenshtein_fast.so()(64bit) rubygem(levenshtein) rubygem-levenshtein rubygem-levenshtein(x86-64) rubygem-levenshtein-doc: rubygem-levenshtein-doc Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-levenshtein: /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein/levenshtein_fast.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://rubygems.org/gems/levenshtein-0.2.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e2088ce4eaf4460e48c1812f43f5d89c50835830e74adcb4317cc477d4f1bf98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e2088ce4eaf4460e48c1812f43f5d89c50835830e74adcb4317cc477d4f1bf98 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rubygem-levenshtein -m fedora-18-x86_64
Thank you for review. (In reply to comment #1) > A few things with full revew to follow. > > I just question wether the lib cannot go into its own subpackage. > > /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2 > /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib > /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein > /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein/levenshtein_fast.so > /usr/lib64/gems/exts/levenshtein-0.2.2/lib/levenshtein/version.rb > > Everything else looks good. No, it is useless for rubygems usage.
Sure no problems. this package is APPROVED
Okay, thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-levenshtein Short Description: Calculates the Levenshtein distance between two byte strings Owners: mtasaka Branches: f17 f18
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Built successfully on rawhide/F-18/F-17, push requested on F-18/F-17. Closing. Thank you for the review and git procedure.