Bug 1344101
Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin - Cross Origin Resource Sharing helper for Sinatra | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | František Dvořák <valtri> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jun Aruga <jaruga> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jaruga, package-review, vondruch |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jaruga:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-08-11 23:22:54 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1301419 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
František Dvořák
2016-06-08 18:40:58 UTC
I will review this! I failed to build. I think the reason is the dependency package sinatra failed to build. sinatra has broken dependency for the rack. We need to wait below fix. Just I uploaded the patch to fix it there. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301419 # Detail ## Fedora Review Command $ fedora-review -b 1344101 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1344101 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1344101 INFO: --> SRPM url: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc25.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://rubygems.org/gems/sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2.gem INFO: Running checks and generating report ERROR: Exception(/home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin/srpm/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc25.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 2 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin/results ERROR: Command failed: ERROR: 'mock build failed, see /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin/results/build.log' ## build.log ERROR: Command failed:- # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc25.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Package rubygem-rack-test-0.6.3-3.fc24.noarch is already installed, skipping. Error: nothing provides rubygem(rack) < 2 needed by rubygem-sinatra-1:1.4.6-3.fc24.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages) Hi, František Dvořák You should build again, after rubygem-sinatra has been updated. However first of all, could you tell me which version of gem2rpm are you using? Still fixed version rubygem-sinatra 1.4.7 is not updated to rawhide, though it is committed to master branch. So, I would wait this review until it is updated on rawhide. ``` dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide rubygem-sinatra rubygem-sinatra-1:1.4.6-3.fc24.noarch ``` (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #4) > Still fixed version rubygem-sinatra 1.4.7 is not updated to rawhide It is actually in Rawhide, available on builders: ``` $ koji wait-repo f26-build --build rubygem-sinatra-1.4.7-1.fc26 Successfully waited 0:02 for rubygem-sinatra-1.4.7-1.fc26 to appear in the f26-build repo ``` It seems that just the compose is failing for some reasons, hence the official repositories are not update. Not a showstopper for anything. Hi, František Dvořák I reviewed it. I want to ask you below points. # Summary ## 1. > %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 > Requires: ruby(rubygems) > Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} > %endif Do you want to use this pacakge for rhel too now? Actually I am not confident that this 2 lines are correct for condition rhel <= 7. I can agree with your style if you are confident for the 2 lines. ## 2. > %files > ... > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/VERSION In my style, I prefer those is included to %files doc section (doc-rpm). My style is - *. gem_cache was excluded. - minimam files to run are included to %files. - Other text files are included to %files doc. because I like kind of same style with output of gem2rpm. However I can agree with you style too, as it is gray area. I want to respect your idea as much as possible if we have different style and it is not violation for the Guideline. ## 3. > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. Could you show me URL of Koji scratch build? # Detail fedora-reivew I will show you the result of fedora-review too, just in case. (I have waited until this package would be composed to rawhide to run fedora-review .) $ fedora-review -b 1344101 ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git /fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra- cross_origin/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [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. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [x]: 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- sinatra-cross_origin-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [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-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc-0.3.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/britg/sinatra-cross_origin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/britg/sinatra-cross_origin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-doc rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin: rubygem(sinatra-cross_origin) rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3eb1a9429ca9a58351d47bfd90236745f98203ee1572696d41de214a33a3c3bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3eb1a9429ca9a58351d47bfd90236745f98203ee1572696d41de214a33a3c3bf Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1344101 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, 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 Jun Aruga from comment #6) > Hi, František Dvořák > > I reviewed it. I want to ask you below points. > > # Summary > > ## 1. > > > %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 > > Requires: ruby(rubygems) > > Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version} > > %endif > > Do you want to use this pacakge for rhel too now? > Actually I am not confident that this 2 lines are correct for condition rhel > <= 7. I can agree with your style if you are confident for the 2 lines. > It is true these lines could be removed. These lines were always needed for EPEL7 (and for F20, which is not needed to check anymore), but it it true I'm not going to package it for EPEL7 right now. I'm interested in EPEL7, but I must explore the sinatra package first, which is not in EPEL7. > ## 2. > > > %files > > ... > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile > > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/VERSION > > In my style, I prefer those is included to %files doc section (doc-rpm). > > My style is > - *. gem_cache was excluded. > - minimam files to run are included to %files. > - Other text files are included to %files doc. > because I like kind of same style with output of gem2rpm. > > However I can agree with you style too, as it is gray area. > > I want to respect your idea as much as possible if we have different style > and it is not violation for the Guideline. > Thanks. I don't have strong preferences here and to be close to gem2rpm means to be more consistent with other packages. Updated. > > ## 3. > > > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > > architectures. > > Could you show me URL of Koji scratch build? > The new koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15203098 Updated version: Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-2/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-2/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-2.fc26.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Aug 10 2016 František Dvořák <valtri.cz> - 0.3.2-2 - Update files section František Dvořák Thanks, I checked the Koji and your updated spec file. I APPROVED it. > koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14425449
Sorry I missed your first Koji build line. I got it. Thanks.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin Thank you very much! The package is in rawhide now. |