Bug 2366188

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9035623
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366188-rubygem-base64/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09035623-rubygem-base64/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Hi,

Could you update to 0.3.0 please.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License". 10 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/rubygem-base64/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[ ]: 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]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: 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-base64-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-base64-doc-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-base64-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpj3e_kek_')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rubygem-base64.noarch: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rubygem-base64".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rubygem-base64-doc".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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
checks: 32, packages: 2

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ruby/base64/archive/v0.2.0/base64-0.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 24fbc4bc04d7e96977124127bb272216cabb450285bec8f3124f9fdcc2fa1427
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24fbc4bc04d7e96977124127bb272216cabb450285bec8f3124f9fdcc2fa1427


Requires
--------
rubygem-base64 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)

rubygem-base64-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-base64



Provides
--------
rubygem-base64:
    rubygem(base64)
    rubygem-base64

rubygem-base64-doc:
    rubygem-base64-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-base64 --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, R, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

So comments

Please build latest 0.3.0

THis package arrises from 

/usr/share/ruby/did_you_mean/core_ext/name_error.rb:11: warning: base64 is not part of the default gems starting from Ruby 3.4.0. Install base64 from RubyGems.

of course.

Should the package only be available for 3.4.0 with a minimum version on ruby ?

To add 

   $ rpm -qf /usr/share/gems/gems/base64-0.2.0/lib/base64.rb
   ruby-bundled-gems-3.4.5-27.fc44.x86_64

   $ rpm -q --whatprovides 'rubygem(base64)'
   ruby-bundled-gems-3.4.5-27.fc44.x86_64

Fromhttps://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2024/12/25/ruby-3-4-0-released/

> The following bundled gems are promoted from default gems.

>  base64 0.2.0

Finally 

`rake test` is not recommended here:  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_running_test_suites

I wonder what is the reason to package this as an independent package. This is still provided by Ruby package as part of ruby-bundled-gems subpackage. IOW in Fedora, it is enough to specify `Requires: rubygem(base64)`, but typically, dependency generators takes care about this.