Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gems should require rubygems package Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-bundler-doc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt.tt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- bundler-doc [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. 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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %doc %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_libdir}, %exclude %{gem_cache} [!]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-bundler-1.2.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm rubygem-bundler-doc-1.2.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-bundler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(abi) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(net-http-persistent) rubygem(thor) rubygem-bundler-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-bundler Provides -------- rubygem-bundler: rubygem(bundler) rubygem-bundler rubygem-bundler-doc: rubygem-bundler-doc MD5-sum check ------------- http://rubygems.org/gems/bundler-1.2.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7093e4f750cf34b6051d765e7f86a88ebe4394921571532233f640f1a7ce6790 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7093e4f750cf34b6051d765e7f86a88ebe4394921571532233f640f1a7ce6790 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (736af0d) last change: 2013-01-28 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn rubygem-bundler -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires