[Bug 1373001] New: Review Request: rubygem-msgpack - MessagePack, a binary-based efficient data interchange format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
Bug ID: 1373001 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-msgpack - MessagePack, a binary-based efficient data interchange format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yguenane@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Spredzy/0e691d3a592b0cb0ab82e367e217a79e/... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9124/15499124/rubygem-msgpack... Description: MessagePack, a binary-based efficient data interchange format Fedora Account System Username: spredzy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mrunge@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mrunge@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- will take the review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. [x]: Header 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1373001 -rubygem-msgpack/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [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. 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 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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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: [ ]: 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]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- msgpack-doc , rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-msgpack-0.5.11-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm rubygem-msgpack-doc-0.5.11-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo-0.5.11-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm rubygem-msgpack-0.5.11-1.fc26.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo-0.5.11-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- rubygem-msgpack-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-msgpack
rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-msgpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libruby.so.2.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby(rubygems)
Provides -------- rubygem-msgpack-doc: rubygem-msgpack-doc
rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo: rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo rubygem-msgpack-debuginfo(x86-64)
rubygem-msgpack: rubygem(msgpack) rubygem-msgpack rubygem-msgpack(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-msgpack: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/msgpack-0.5.11/msgpack/msgpack.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/msgpack-0.5.11.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c9dbc9d0b0dee2503ce99b0761ac8a4387f795b6ced687a8bdb75244704b1ca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c9dbc9d0b0dee2503ce99b0761ac8a4387f795b6ced687a8bdb75244704b1ca
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1373001 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-msgpack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ggillies@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1209299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1426110
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2017-06-13 03:20:22
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla