Bug 1955985

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67050984

*** Bug 1114146 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Taking this review.

Some initial issues:

Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
- 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 MIT-LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Installation errors
-------------------
Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides libyajl.so.2()(x86-64) needed by rubygem-ffi-yajl-2.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64

Is libyajl being reviewed? It should probably be marked as a blocker

Ah, you want this:

$ sudo dnf repoquery --repo rawhide --provides yajl                         
libyajl.so.2
libyajl.so.2()(64bit)
yajl = 2.1.0-16.fc34
yajl(x86-32) = 2.1.0-16.fc34
yajl(x86-64) = 2.1.0-16.fc34

Not sure what's best here. either hardcode whether you're matching agaist 64-bit or 32-bit based on %ifarch, or... just don't specify the architecture at all.

This is the way vetted by RPM folks:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ruby-vips/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-ruby-vips.spec#_16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870208#c5

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5)
> This is the way vetted by RPM folks:
> 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ruby-vips/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-
> ruby-vips.spec#_16
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870208#c5

And this should be probably used also as a BR instead of the yajl-devel.

Any volunteer to formalize this method via some macro and documenting it in packaging guidelines? ;)

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl-2.4.0-2.fc35.src.rpm

Changelog:
- Fix requires for yail
- Add missing requires on ruby(release)
- Install additional license file

Note: /usr/bin/ffi-yajl-bench doesn't actually run as it requires a bunch of other gems that aren't packaged yet (oj, yajl-ruby, and something called "perftools.rb" I can't find anywhere). I'm looking into that now.

(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #8)
> Note: /usr/bin/ffi-yajl-bench doesn't actually run

This sounds as some development tool. Should it even be installed by default?

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

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

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

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.