[Bug 989143] Review Request: rubygem-charlock_holmes - Character encoding detecting library for Ruby using ICU
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Aug 6 04:11:37 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989143
Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> ---
I've noted two more issues below, but they are not blockers. Please fix them
before importing the package to Fedora :)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==============
- The -doc package should not require /usr/bin/env. This is side-effect from
RPM processing the shebang line "#!/usr/bin/env python" in
test/fixtures/laholator.py. The following line will fix it:
%global __requires_exclude ^/usr/bin/env$
See https://github.com/axilleas/fedora/pull/5 :)
- Please remove the whitespace line at the top of %description. For some reason
gem2rpm has put an extra line there before the text, and that actually does
show up in the rpm -qpi.
Assuming you will fix these two, package is approved.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. Yes, MIT.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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 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.
fedora-review found that there is no "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}" in rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc, but since this is a
noarch sub-package, I don't think that applies.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
As a general policy we should avoid requiring /usr/bin/env. See above.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
Yes, %{gem_extdir_mri} in this case.
[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.
===== 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane.
See my comments above about /usr/bin/env.
[?]: 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.
Note: tested i386.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[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-charlock_holmes-0.6.9.4-2.fc19.i686.rpm
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc-0.6.9.4-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) charlock
-> char lock, char-lock, oarlock
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) holmes ->
Holmes, holes, homes
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
charlock -> char lock, char-lock, oarlock
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
holmes -> Holmes, holes, homes
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc rubygem-charlock_holmes
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) charlock
-> char lock, char-lock, oarlock
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) holmes ->
Holmes, holes, homes
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
charlock -> char lock, char-lock, oarlock
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
holmes -> Holmes, holes, homes
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/env
rubygem-charlock_holmes
rubygem-charlock_holmes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6
libcrypt.so.1
libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libicui18n.so.50
libm.so.6
libpthread.so.0
librt.so.1
libruby.so.2.0
libstdc++.so.6
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ruby(release)
ruby(rubygems)
Provides
--------
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc:
rubygem-charlock_holmes-doc
rubygem-charlock_holmes:
charlock_holmes.so
rubygem(charlock_holmes)
rubygem-charlock_holmes
rubygem-charlock_holmes(x86-32)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
rubygem-charlock_holmes:
/usr/lib/gems/ruby/charlock_holmes-0.6.9.4/lib/charlock_holmes/charlock_holmes.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/charlock_holmes-0.6.9.4.gem :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e52db7af0f7a652f55244455f84b4f1c09144f0d5e416f677a912f9147d6dfef
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e52db7af0f7a652f55244455f84b4f1c09144f0d5e416f677a912f9147d6dfef
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-19-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 989143
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=C38zoXprSd&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list