Hello, this is a informal review, cuz' i can't sponsor you but i hope that this info can be useful for you.

Suggestions:

* Please add Requires: rubygems to %package doc section
* Change the name of the spec file to => rubygem-aes.spec
* The summary can't finish with a dot please erase this.
* Some errors according to en_US
* The description line is to long (max 80 characters for line)
 

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- gems should require rubygems package
  Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-aes-doc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE_txt.html is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: aes-0.5.0.spec should be rubygem-aes.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
     /usr/share/gems/doc
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
     aes-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Ruby:
[!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[ ]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros:
     /usr/share/gems/specifications/aes-0.5.0.gemspec, %exclude
     /usr/share/gems/cache/aes-0.5.0.gem
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.

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

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: /home/leinfeva/reviews/1223774-aes-0.5.0
     /srpm-unpacked/aes-0.5.0.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-aes-0.5.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-aes-doc-0.5.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-aes-0.5.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decrypt -> decry pt, decry-pt, decry
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ontop -> onto, on top, on-top
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt, decry-pt, decry
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ontop -> onto, on top, on-top
rubygem-aes.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.  Not as quick as FastAES, but it doesn't require building native extensions and supports Base64 encoded input and output.
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-aes-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/aes-0.5.0/.document
rubygem-aes.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decrypt -> decry pt, decry-pt, decry
rubygem-aes.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ontop -> onto, on top, on-top
rubygem-aes.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
rubygem-aes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt, decry-pt, decry
rubygem-aes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ontop -> onto, on top, on-top
rubygem-aes.src: E: description-line-too-long C An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.  Not as quick as FastAES, but it doesn't require building native extensions and supports Base64 encoded input and output.
rubygem-aes.src: E: invalid-spec-name
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.
rubygem-aes.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C An AES encrypt/decrypt gem built ontop of OpenSSL.  Not as quick as FastAES, but it doesn't require building native extensions and supports Base64 encoded input and output.
rubygem-aes.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-aes-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/aes-0.5.0/.document
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.



Requires
--------
rubygem-aes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)

rubygem-aes-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-aes



Provides
--------
rubygem-aes:
    rubygem(aes)
    rubygem-aes

rubygem-aes-doc:
    rubygem-aes-doc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(In reply to leinfeva from comment #1)
> * Please add Requires: rubygems to %package doc section
> - gems should require rubygems package
>   Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-aes-doc
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems

Not sure where this comes from. But this is definitely not needed (unless you prove me wrong of course ;)

> rubygem-aes-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/gems/gems/aes-0.5.0/.document

This is one issue pointed out by rpmlint I'd like to highlight.

And there is no test suite executed.

Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Something what should not be closed.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.