Bug 1266723

Dan,

have you considered to contact the ruby-ncurses maintainer and obsolete that package?



[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/ruby-ncurses/

 - This is the old install method:

%prep
gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
%setup -q -D -T -n  %{gem_name}-%{version}
gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby >%{gem_name}.gemspec

%build
gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
%gem_install

  Should be something like this:

%prep
%setup -q -n %{gem_name}-%{version}

%build
# Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file
gem build ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec

# %%gem_install compiles any C extensions and installs the gem into ./%%gem_dir
# by default, so that we can move it into the buildroot in %%install
%gem_install

Try regenerating the SPEC with gem2rpm ncursesw --fetch

 - The license file must be installed with %license in %files

Updated:
https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rubygem-ncursesw/rubygem-ncursesw.spec
https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rubygem-ncursesw/rubygem-ncursesw-1.4.10-1.fc33.src.rpm

I used the new %prep and %build sections as emitted by gem2rpm, although I had to discard all the rest of its changes because it got a lot of things wrong (licenses, summary, description, interpreter dependencies...)

 - Some examples are distributed under LDPL (Linux Documentation Project License), could you add it in the License field and add a comment sying that some example are LDPL licensed

 - Please notify upstream that they are using an obsolete FSF address in their COPYING file (do not patch it yourself):

rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/rubygem-ncursesw/COPYING


Package is approved, please fix the License field before import.

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

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



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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2
     or later)", "Expat License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-
     ncursesw/review-rubygem-ncursesw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %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.
[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-ncursesw-1.4.10-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          rubygem-ncursesw-doc-1.4.10-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-ncursesw-debuginfo-1.4.10-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          rubygem-ncursesw-debugsource-1.4.10-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          rubygem-ncursesw-1.4.10-1.fc33.src.rpm
rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses
rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses
rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/ncursesw-1.4.10/gem.build_complete
rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/rubygem-ncursesw/COPYING
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/form.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby 
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/form2.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby 
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/form_get_wch.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby 
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/hello_ncurses.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/rain.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/read_line.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/tclock.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/test_scanw.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
rubygem-ncursesw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses
rubygem-ncursesw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 4 warnings.

Thanks very much for the review!

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4)
>  - Some examples are distributed under LDPL (Linux Documentation Project
> License), could you add it in the License field and add a comment sying that
> some example are LDPL licensed

Nice catch, will fix this.

>  - Please notify upstream that they are using an obsolete FSF address in
> their COPYING file (do not patch it yourself):
> 
> rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/rubygem-ncursesw/COPYING

I posted a PR upstream:
https://github.com/sup-heliotrope/ncursesw-ruby/pull/37

The fedora-scm-requests tooling was not happy about this bug because the reporter is dcallagh (my old, closed account) which does not match my current FAS email address djc.au.

I filed a fresh review as bug 1857037.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1857037 ***