https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- New SPEC: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerp... New SRPM: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerp...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

--- Comment #2 from Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rjoost/tmp/1268703-rubygem-powerpack/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]: 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 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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- powerpack-doc [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-powerpack-0.1.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-powerpack-doc-0.1.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-powerpack-0.1.1-2.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Requires -------- rubygem-powerpack-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-powerpack

rubygem-powerpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems)

Provides -------- rubygem-powerpack-doc: rubygem-powerpack-doc

rubygem-powerpack: rubygem(powerpack) rubygem-powerpack

Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/powerpack-0.1.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83a81d0406f1628adc61b579689dc4509b30409a00fa4ca8f47ff212a91bd6ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83a81d0406f1628adc61b579689dc4509b30409a00fa4ca8f47ff212a91bd6ba

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268703 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

--- Comment #4 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- (In reply to Roman Joost from comment #3)

Approved. Good work!

thx!)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

--- Comment #6 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- update source(fix error in tests). spec: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerp... srpm: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-powerp...

koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20835143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

--- Comment #8 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7)

Ping ... What is the status here, please? The package was approved already ...

excuse me, it is fixed.