[Bug 989132] Review Request: rubygem-sanitize - Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jul 27 21:41:29 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989132
Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> ---
Thanks for packaging this.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- The spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM. The .spec
BuildRequires: rubygem(nokogiri) >= 1.4.4, whereas the RPM contains an
unversioned BR. This does not block the review, particularly since 1.4.4 is
such an old nokogiri version (F19 currenly ships with nokogiri 1.5.9).
- You don't need to run "rm -rf test" within %check. This does not block the
review, but since it's probably a holdover from when the tests were bundled
separately (2.0.4), I recommend removing this line.
===== 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]: 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 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-
sanitize-doc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Yes, MIT.
[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.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
===== 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.
Upstream already ships LICENSE file
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
[-]: 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).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-sanitize-2.0.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
rubygem-sanitize-doc-2.0.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Whitelist -> White
list, White-list, Whistle
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sanitizer ->
sanitize, sanitizes, sanitized
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitelist ->
white list, white-list, whistle
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sanitizer ->
sanitize, sanitizes, sanitized
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rubygem-sanitize-doc rubygem-sanitize
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Whitelist -> White
list, White-list, Whistle
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sanitizer ->
sanitize, sanitizes, sanitized
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitelist ->
white list, white-list, whistle
rubygem-sanitize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sanitizer ->
sanitize, sanitizes, sanitized
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- 989132-rubygem-sanitize/srpm/rubygem-sanitize.spec 2013-07-27
15:06:20.920668483 -0600
+++ 989132-rubygem-sanitize/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-sanitize.spec 2013-07-27
15:06:21.515657860 -0600
@@ -17,5 +17,5 @@
BuildRequires: ruby >= 1.9.2
BuildRequires: rubygem(minitest)
-BuildRequires: rubygem(nokogiri) >= 1.4.4
+BuildRequires: rubygem(nokogiri)
BuildArch: noarch
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
Requires
--------
rubygem-sanitize-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-sanitize
rubygem-sanitize (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ruby(release)
ruby(rubygems)
rubygem(nokogiri)
Provides
--------
rubygem-sanitize-doc:
rubygem-sanitize-doc
rubygem-sanitize:
rubygem(sanitize)
rubygem-sanitize
Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/sanitize-2.0.6.gem :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
204cdaf6f7db12e20da25497a974cae7a891cfb7afb37669a0d31007300004a9
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
204cdaf6f7db12e20da25497a974cae7a891cfb7afb37669a0d31007300004a9
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 989132
Package approved.
--
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=Nag93T4dju&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list