https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463807
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - While the few files with license headers mostly specify LGPL-2.1 without including the "or any later version" language, lib/rexical/generator.rb does include that language. I think the License field should be: LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later - Please consider using https instead of http in the URL field - Not an issue, just a note that the modern form of the find command in %install is: find %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/bin -type f -exec chmod a+x {} + That only spawns one subprocess instead of two, and avoids problems with pathnames that contain spaces. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 32 files have unknown license. See above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [x]: Gem package does not contain Requires: ruby(release). ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache} Is fedora-review out of date here? There is no rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: gems should not require rubygems 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-rexical-1.0.8-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rubygem-rexical-doc-1.0.8-1.fc45.noarch.rpm rubygem-rexical-1.0.8-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp049lhpvd')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rubygem-rexical.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rex rubygem-rexical-doc.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gems/gems/rexical-1.0.8/sample/sample1.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 rubygem-rexical.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rex rubygem-rexical-doc.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gems/gems/rexical-1.0.8/sample/sample1.c 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/rexical-1.0.8.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3862eca0c8409cbf6fa2137e395cb91f6c9d5a00efd2ed4b86e4c27c290eccc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3862eca0c8409cbf6fa2137e395cb91f6c9d5a00efd2ed4b86e4c27c290eccc2 Requires -------- rubygem-rexical (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ruby ruby(rubygems) rubygem(getoptlong) rubygem-rexical-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-rexical Provides -------- rubygem-rexical: rubygem(rexical) rubygem-rexical rubygem-rexical-doc: rubygem-rexical-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2463807 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, R, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463807 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202463807%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
