Bug 1319289
| Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Antonio T. (sagitter) <anto.trande> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | nonamedotc, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | nonamedotc:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-05-04 18:52:51 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Antonio T. (sagitter)
2016-03-18 17:52:13 UTC
Taking this up for review. Will post review tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. 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-review-doc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ---> Guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems states " There should not be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to explicitly specify Ruby version compatibility. Automatically generated dependency on RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough. " Automatically generated requires shows "ruby(rubygems)" (below). So, this seems to be bogus. - 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: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ---> License file is installed in the main package. /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING But, license file should be installed like this - %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE ===== 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: "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 128 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1319289-rubygem- review/licensecheck.txt ---> This seems mostly fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> Please see my comment above. [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 ---> This seems fine to me. The only rm -rf statements I see are fine. [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]: 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 ---> As far as I can tell, this is ok since it's used in examples, I think. /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-Light.ttf /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-LightItalic.ttf /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-Regular.ttf /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-RegularItalic.ttf /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf Am I right? Can you check? [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- review-doc ---> noarch [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: 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 package should exclude cached Gem. ---> I cannot find reference to excluding cached gem here - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby Can you please verify this? [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %doc %{gem_docdir}, %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_libdir} ---> Please revisit macros. [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-review-1.7.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-review-doc-1.7.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-review-1.7.2-1.fc25.src.rpm rubygem-review.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gihyo -> yogi rubygem-review.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jp -> JP, dip, hp rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-review.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ---> Please review. rubygem-review.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop_todo.yml rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.travis.yml rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop.yml ---> Needed? rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-compile rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-check rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-vol rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-index rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-epubmaker-legacy rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-init rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-validate rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-checkdep rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-pdfmaker rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-preproc rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-epubmaker rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-catalog-converter rubygem-review.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gihyo -> yogi rubygem-review.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jp -> JP, dip, hp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 20 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rubygem-review.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gihyo -> yogi rubygem-review.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jp -> JP, dip, hp rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-review.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb 644 /usr/bin/env rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.travis.yml rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop.yml rubygem-review.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop_todo.yml rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-validate rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-vol rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-pdfmaker rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-epubmaker rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-check rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-checkdep rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-preproc rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-catalog-converter rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-index rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-compile rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-init rubygem-review.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary review-epubmaker-legacy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 18 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-review-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-review rubygem-review (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ruby ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-review-doc: rubygem-review-doc rubygem-review: rubygem(review) rubygem-review Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/downloads/review-1.7.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : df6a72eac2b2539535e717972ca0491c266fa35a0aa70b094d4e02f887d2dae8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : df6a72eac2b2539535e717972ca0491c266fa35a0aa70b094d4e02f887d2dae8 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1319289 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3) > Package Review > ============== > > > - 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: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > ---> License file is installed in the main package. > > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING > > > But, license file should be installed like this - > > %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE > Okay. > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > Note: Package contains font files > > ---> As far as I can tell, this is ok since it's used in examples, I think. > > /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-Light.ttf > /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-LightItalic.ttf > /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-Regular.ttf > /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-RegularItalic.ttf > /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf > /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf > > Am I right? Can you check? See bz#1224715. > Ruby: > [!]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. > > ---> I cannot find reference to excluding cached gem here - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby > > > Can you please verify this? Cache excluded. > > [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. It's used. > [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. > Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %doc %{gem_docdir}, > %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_libdir} > > ---> Please revisit macros. Okay. > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb 644 /usr/bin/env > > ---> Please review. Fixed. > > rubygem-review.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING > rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop_todo.yml > rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.travis.yml > rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop.yml > > ---> Needed? Removed. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review-1.7.2-2.fc23.src.rpm (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3) > > Package Review > > ============== > > > > > > - 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: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) > > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > > > > ---> License file is installed in the main package. > > > > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING > > > > > > But, license file should be installed like this - > > > > %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE > > > > Okay. There is one mistake in the spec file. You are installing the license file and immediately excluding it. %license %{gem_instdir}/COPYING <snip> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/COPYING Why? I got rid of the exclude line and built a package. See the difference in files here - $ diff -Nu w_excld wo_excld --- w_excld 2016-04-20 18:58:21.183113956 -0400 +++ wo_excld 2016-04-20 18:57:55.818377962 -0400 @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ /usr/bin/review-validate /usr/bin/review-vol /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2 +/usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/ChangeLog /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Dockerfile /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Gemfile wo_excld - package build without the exclude lien w_excld - package build with the spec linked here. -doc package will have no difference. Please fix this. > > > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb 644 /usr/bin/env > > > > ---> Please review. > > Fixed. > ---> This does not seem to be fixed. $ rpmls rubygem-review-1.7.2-2.fc25.noarch.rpm <snip> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb <snip> Other than these two, I do not have any other issues. Please take a look. I am ready to approve once these are taken care of. (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > > > There is one mistake in the spec file. You are installing the license file > and immediately excluding it. > > %license %{gem_instdir}/COPYING > > <snip> > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/COPYING > > Why? > > > I got rid of the exclude line and built a package. See the difference in > files here - > > $ diff -Nu w_excld wo_excld > --- w_excld 2016-04-20 18:58:21.183113956 -0400 > +++ wo_excld 2016-04-20 18:57:55.818377962 -0400 > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > /usr/bin/review-validate > /usr/bin/review-vol > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2 > +/usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/ChangeLog > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Dockerfile > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Gemfile > > > wo_excld - package build without the exclude lien > w_excld - package build with the spec linked here. Failed attempt to not list same file two times. > > > -doc package will have no difference. Please fix this. > Sorry, I miss it. Fix what? ed attempt to not list same file two times.
>
> >
> >
> > -doc package will have no difference. Please fix this.
> >
>
> Sorry, I miss it.
> Fix what?
Nothing to fix here. I meant to say "please fix this" in the context of %license macro.
Hope that clarifies.
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23.src.rpm Ok, this looks good to me. Package APPROVED. Thanks for the quick fixes. Thank you. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-review rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b0561d5d2a rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e96b805c6b rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-36c69445a6 rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-36c69445a6 rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e96b805c6b rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b0561d5d2a rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |