https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654426
--- Comment #6 from Dillen Meijboom <info(a)dmeijboom.nl> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- Run the tests
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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright*
BSD
2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 31
files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-xdg/review-rubygem-
xdg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
Ruby:
[x]: 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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
xdg-doc
[?]: 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.
[!]: %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 should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[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 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-xdg-2.2.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
rubygem-xdg-doc-2.2.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
rubygem-xdg-2.2.3-1.fc30.src.rpm
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/.index
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/demo/fixtures/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.cache
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.config
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/xdg-2.2.3/test/fakeroot/home/.local
rubygem-xdg.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings.
Thanks! I should've checked this before submitting a review request. I
implemented the %check stage which executes the tests of this package and
updated the license to: BSD. As for the "hidden-file-or-dir" messages I'm
not
sure what to do, those files are required for the unit tests of the package.
New Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/rubygem-xdg/fed...
New SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/rubygem-xdg/fed...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component