Bug 2338474

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/~vondruch/rubygem-rackup-2.2.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

BTW while the situation with missing rubygem-rack 3+ is suboptimal, it should not be considered blocker IMHO:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_a_note_on_dependencies

Apparently I have missed `BR: rubygem(minitest)`. Fixed version is available here:

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-rackup.git/plain/rubygem-rackup.spec?id=c3b016c05e2414bd66792645851803f0721fe9a0
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/~vondruch/rubygem-rackup-2.2.1-2.fc42.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8526553
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338474-rubygem-rackup/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08526553-rubygem-rackup/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #4)
> Copr build:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8526553
> (failed)

Yep, this error happens with Rack 2.x. I have not tried to figure out if there is a way to make it work.

Taking for review.

Package approved! But we still will need rack >= 3, putting that bug into "depends on".

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

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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 License", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/rubygem-rackup/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.
[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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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.

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

Generic:
[-]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-rackup-2.2.1-2.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-rackup-doc-2.2.1-2.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-rackup-2.2.1-2.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk2s77v33')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rubygem-rackup.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rackup
rubygem-rackup.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-rackup.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: rackup-2.2.1-tests.tar.gz
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rubygem-rackup".
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rubygem-rackup-doc".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/rackup-2.2.1.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f737191fd5c5b348b7f0a4412a3b86383f88c43e13b8217b63d4c8d90b9e798d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f737191fd5c5b348b7f0a4412a3b86383f88c43e13b8217b63d4c8d90b9e798d


Requires
--------
rubygem-rackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/ruby
    ruby(rubygems)
    rubygem(rack)

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



Provides
--------
rubygem-rackup:
    rubygem(rackup)
    rubygem-rackup

rubygem-rackup-doc:
    rubygem-rackup-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rubygem-rackup --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java, C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thx for the review and setting the dependencies 👍 Although I could ask for a repo in advance, I'll rather wait

Re-approving for request repo, still relevant.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-rackup

FEDORA-2025-203b7db566 (rubygem-actioncable-8.0.2-1.fc43, rubygem-actionmailbox-8.0.2-1.fc43, and 16 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-203b7db566

FEDORA-2025-203b7db566 (rubygem-actioncable-8.0.2-1.fc43, rubygem-actionmailbox-8.0.2-1.fc43, and 16 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.