https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811775 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - Valid license shorthand for Apache-2.0 is ASL 2.0 License: ASL 2.0 - Remove these in %install, %exclude is to be used only for file exclusion between multiple packages: %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.rubocop.yml %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.yardopts 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-semantic_puppet/review-rubygem- semantic_puppet/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]: 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]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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-semantic_puppet-1.0.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc-1.0.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rubygem-semantic_puppet-1.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm rubygem-semantic_puppet.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rubygem-semantic_puppet.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rubygem-semantic_puppet.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- 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=1811775 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- You didn't fix this: - Remove these in %install, %exclude is to be used only for file exclusion between multiple packages: %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.rubocop.yml %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.yardopts -- 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=1811775 --- Comment #5 from Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stabl... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stabl... Description: Tools used by Puppet to parse, validate, and compare Semantic Versions and Version Ranges and to query and resolve module dependencies. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb Ooh, just pushed the changes. It should be fine now. Thanks. -- 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=1811775 Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no&gt; --- Summary: fix changelog and consider name change, the rest is fine. ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [?]: Changelog in prescribed format. Please fix this. [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 [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. For RPMS it's normal to us - over _, switch to rubygem-semantic-puppet ? [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]: 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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. [-]: 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]: 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 [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported [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 [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-semantic_puppet-1.0.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc-1.0.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rubygem-semantic_puppet-1.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm rubygem-semantic_puppet.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/puppetlabs/semantic_puppet <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-semantic_puppet.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/puppetlabs/semantic_puppet <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-semantic_puppet.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/semantic_puppet-1.0.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 605be0ec9ca8354ece1da9481b58128327c48e68b1afa3cff96e5fde7221d510 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 605be0ec9ca8354ece1da9481b58128327c48e68b1afa3cff96e5fde7221d510 Requires -------- rubygem-semantic_puppet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-semantic_puppet Provides -------- rubygem-semantic_puppet: rubygem(semantic_puppet) rubygem-semantic_puppet rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc: rubygem-semantic_puppet-doc -- 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=1811775 Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? -- 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=1811775 --- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no&gt; --- Package rubygem-semantic_puppet is APPROVED -- 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=1811775 --- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no&gt; --- Please import the package source, build and close the ticket. -- 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=1811775 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-27598f5ff2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-27598f5ff2 -- 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=1811775 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-07-12 00:51:37 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-27598f5ff2 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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