Bug 2143314

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

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



===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v2.1 or later", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/rubygem-gdk4/2143314-rubygem-gdk4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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]: 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.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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).
[x]: Gem package does not contain Requires: ruby(release).

===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: 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:
[?]: 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]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

rubygem-gdk4-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL-2.1+
rubygem-gdk4.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL-2.1+
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/gdk4-4.0.3.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c6c49fa273285c2e18da8f6b541c86dc8667659efaf76eb78be33e1cd1b93f22
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6c49fa273285c2e18da8f6b541c86dc8667659efaf76eb78be33e1cd1b93f22


Requires
--------
rubygem-gdk4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gtk4
    ruby(rubygems)
    rubygem(cairo-gobject)
    rubygem(gdk_pixbuf2)
    rubygem(pango)

rubygem-gdk4-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-gdk4



Provides
--------
rubygem-gdk4:
    rubygem(gdk4)
    rubygem-gdk4

rubygem-gdk4-doc:
    rubygem-gdk4-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143314
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Ruby
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, fonts, Perl, PHP, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

$ rpmlint rubygem-gdk4-4.0.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

rubygem-gdk4.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL-2.1+
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 
$ rpmlint rubygem-gdk4-4.0.3-1.fc38.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

rubygem-gdk4.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: gdk4-4.0.3-test-missing-files.tar.gz
rubygem-gdk4.src: W: invalid-license LGPL-2.1+
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 
$ rpmlint rubygem-gdk4-doc-4.0.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

rubygem-gdk4-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL-2.1+
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Comments:
a) Can you add OFL license as the fonts are bundled in the documentation.
usr/share/gems/doc/gdk4-4.0.3/rdoc/fonts
contains
Lato-LightItalic.ttf  Lato-RegularItalic.ttf  SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf
Lato-Light.ttf        Lato-Regular.ttf        SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf
b) Correct functionality assumed based on tests
c) Timestamps are not preserved by gem_install, so this is ok
d) Current practice seems to bundle the fonts. There is work to unbundle them. Personally would have preferred them softlinked and a requires added to the appropriate font packages.

Thank you for comments! Then:

a) and d)
Currently not only this package but every rubygem-XXX rdoc subpackages bundles these
fonts, e.g.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2071826
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2068925

And none of these packags has these license tag.
Currently there is slow discussion about how to deal with these bundled
fonts on ruby-sig list, however as this is how rdoc files are generated and
affects every rubygem- packages, in short,
I don't think we should deal license tag issue in individual packages.

So currently I want to keep a) and d) issue left as currently.

b) Well, what does this mean? (By the way, warnings from %check are from red-colors gem, not this,
   so I don't think this is a blocker, however rubygem-red-colors are also owned by me...)

c) okay.

The warings appearing in rubygem-gdk4 %check should be removed with rubygem-red-colors-0.3.0-7.fc38.

Warnings are not a blocker. It would be good to make progress on the fonts though.
It may take a while to get this fixed, so easiest for now is to either:
a) Add the OFL license for the fonts in the doc subpackage.
b) Remove the fonts and include the required fonts packages as dependencies which will be picked up if the docs are viewed locally
c) Not package rdoc directory

Probably option a is easier, but all are acceptable for me to pass the review.

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mtasaka/for_package_review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05065276-rubygem-gdk4/rubygem-gdk4.spec
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mtasaka/for_package_review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05065276-rubygem-gdk4/rubygem-gdk4-4.0.3-2.fc38.src.rpm

* Thu Nov 24 2022 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> - 4.0.3-2
- List license for embedded fonts explicitly

Thanks. Approved.

When importing please update
LGPL-2.1+
to
LGPL-2.1-or-later
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-gdk4

Built for rawhide, thank you for review. Builds for released branches will be followed later.