Bug 1210826

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

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


Issues:
=======
1. Currently the %files list has the entire "%{gem_instdir}" directory. This means that CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE, and README.md ship in /usr/share/gems/gems/pathspec-0.0.2/, but these are not marked as %doc. You can use %{gem_libdir} instead:

  %dir %{gem_instdir}
  %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
  %doc %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md
  %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md
  %{gem_libdir}

2. %{gem_docdir} should go into a rubygem-pathspec-doc sub-package.

3. %exclude %{gem_cache}

4. Mind running the tests? You can do something like this for %check:

  %check
  pushd .%{gem_instdir}
    rspec -Ilib spec
  popd

  This will BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)


===== 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package uses %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.
[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]: gems should require rubygems package
[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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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 package should exclude cached Gem.
[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc
     %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_libdir}
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.

===== 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-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-pathspec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
rubygem-pathspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


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



Provides
--------
rubygem-pathspec:
    rubygem(pathspec)
    rubygem-pathspec



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/downloads/pathspec-0.0.2.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7ffd0ba9d0f60bef96d69d4a46b0a5b2e593d6ece5b6d640e82d68e48beea7df
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ffd0ba9d0f60bef96d69d4a46b0a5b2e593d6ece5b6d640e82d68e48beea7df


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1210826 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--yum
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

So, pathspec doesn't ship a spec file in the gemfile.  Should I switch to building from source for this then?

I imported your SRPM into a Git repo so it's clearer. Here's how I recommend handling the tests: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-pathspec.git/commit/?id=2957c1fb52216a43e9b6fc94d4fd7d02cf6738d8

I use a small shell script (rubygem-pathspec-generate-tarball.sh) to download the upstream source zipfile from a GitHub tag, then strip down that zipfile so it only contains the tests. At that point, %setup can decompress Source2 so that it appears to be part of the tree.

To fix this upstream, I've submitted https://github.com/highb/pathspec-ruby/pull/4

Ruby's RSpec library has made some API breaks between 2.x and 3.x, so I've also updated the .spec there to handle both APIs depending on the %{fedora} version. This allows the package to build on Fedora 21, 22, and 23.

This is a little different, but seems to work:

* Fri Apr 10 2015 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.0.2-2
- Fix files
- Doc subpackage
- Run tests

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm

All the issues mentioned above are fixed in 0.0.2-2, and that's a great idea with "svn export" for the tests. Scratch build looks good: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9507781

APPROVED

Thanks for the review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-pathspec
Short Description: Use to match path patterns such as gitignore
Upstream URL: https://rubygems.org/gems/pathspec
Owners: orion
Branches: f22 f21 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22

Package rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22, rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22 puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22 rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6523/puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Package rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22 puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6523/puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.