[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 2 01:25:31 UTC 2012


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560

Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(guillermo.gomez at g |
                   |mail.com)                   |

--- Comment #6 from Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez at gmail.com> 2012-02-01 20:25:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Review summary:
> 
> - Missing dependency rubygem(tidy_ffi) ?
> - I'm not sure if you are following packaging guidelines with regards to
> version constrains on the gemdeps
> - Package looks OK to me otherwise
> 
> Legend
> 
> + OK
> - Not Applicable, ignored
> ? Still under Review
> 
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
> produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
> .
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
> [?] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines .
> [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license. [3]
> [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
> [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
> [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
> [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
> upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
> Guidelines for how to deal with this.
> [?] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
> at least one primary architecture. [7]
> [-] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
> architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
> ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
> bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
> that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
> corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
> [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
> any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
> inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
> [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
> %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
> [-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
> files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
> call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
> [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
> [-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
> this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
> relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
> considered a blocker. [12]
> [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory. [13]
> [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)[14]
> [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. [15]
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
> [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
> definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
> restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
> [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
> runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
> run properly if it is not present. [18]
> [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
> [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
> [-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
> libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
> a -devel package. [19]
> [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
> %{version}-%{release} [21]
> [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
> removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
> [-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
> file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
> %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
> a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
> [22]
> [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
> should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
> means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
> any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
> feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
> package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
> [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
> 
> [-] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [25]
> [-] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [26]
> [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
> [-] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
> supported architectures. [28]
> [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
> package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
> [-] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
> vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
> [-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
> call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
> [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
> [-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
> this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
> relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
> considered a blocker. [12]
> [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory. [13]
> [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)[14]
> [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. [15]
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
> [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
> definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
> restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
> [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
> runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
> run properly if it is not present. [18]
> [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
> [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
> [-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
> libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
> a -devel package. [19]
> [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
> %{version}-%{release} [21]
> [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
> removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
> [-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
> file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
> %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
> a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
> [22]
> [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
> should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
> means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
> any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
> feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
> package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
> [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
> 
> [-] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [25]
> [-] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
> should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [26]
> [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
> [-] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
> supported architectures. [28]
> [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
> package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
> [-] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
> vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
> [-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. [21]

Thank u very much for reviewing, i'll address any issues as soon as i can, but
clearly i made a mistake with missing dependency, so i'll take care about that
first .

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.


More information about the package-review mailing list