Bug 906473

there seems to be a tiny difference between your spec file and the spec file in the your srpm:

diff erlang-ranch.spec.srpm_version erlang.ranch.spec.dowloaded_from_review_request
18c18
< # Error:erlang(lists:keyfind/3 in R12B and earlier
---
> # Error:erlang(lists:keyfind/3) in R12B and earlier

I trust you'll fix the srpm version in the next update.

mock runs fine and creates 2 rpm files.
The rpmlint results on these rpm files are:

$ rpmlint  erlang-ranch-0.6.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
erlang-ranch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.src: W: invalid-url Source0: extend-ranch-0.6.1-0-gd635aec.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint  erlang-ranch-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/erlang-ranch-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

The spelling-error and invalid-url warnings are not significant I think.

The no-binary error seems more significant. According to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-binary

E: foo-package no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries.
Solution:- Add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file 

Since erlang beam files should be cross-platform compatible, this seems to be applicable to me. If this is not the case for this package, please explain why.

Also the file-not-utf8 warning seems correct to me. A fix is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8

(In reply to comment #1)
> there seems to be a tiny difference between your spec file and the spec file
> in the your srpm:
> I trust you'll fix the srpm version in the next update.

Fixed!

> erlang-ranch.x86_64: E: no-binary
> erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

See explanation below.

> erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/erlang-ranch-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc

Fixed!

> The no-binary error seems more significant. According to:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-binary
> 
> E: foo-package no-binary
> The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
> any binaries.
> Solution:- Add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file 
> 
> Since erlang beam files should be cross-platform compatible, this seems to
> be applicable to me. If this is not the case for this package, please
> explain why.

That's a typical Erlang's packaging-related shortcoming. The problem is that Erlang binaries (even if they are technically arch-independent as in this case) *must* be installed into %{_libdir} which is arch-dependent. Therefore the entire package becomes arch-dependent. So I can't just mark this package as noarch now, and this issue should be ignored for now.

Actually I think I will fix this in the future, but definitely not in Fedora 19 release.


New src,rpm:

* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-ranch.spec

Thanks for fixing the rpmlint issues and explaining the no-binary error. I am happy with this for the moment.

mock still runs fine on the new srpm and rpmlint results are now:

$ rpmlint erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
erlang-ranch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.src: W: invalid-url Source0: extend-ranch-0.6.1-0-gd635aec.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acceptor -> accept or, accept-or, accept
erlang-ranch.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

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

Key:
[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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 24 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

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

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
==>this fails as you have noted in the spec file.
manually running the 'rebar ct -v' command in a mock shell after
building and installing the erlang-ranch rpm works to some extent.
It runs and displays at the end of the test sequence:
Testing BUILD.extend-ranch-d635aec: TEST COMPLETE, 16 ok, 0 failed of 16 test cases
However, the text output of the tests themselves print a series of errors.
I did not investigate in any detail if this was intended or a real problem.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
==>the '-p' flag should probably be added to the install step in %install
as suggested in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines
but since this is a should item only, I trust you will look into this in
a next version.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

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

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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.

Concluding, all must items are fine.
There are 2 should items still open, which I trust you will look at in a next update of the package.

Therefore this package is 

APPROVED

just for completeness, koji results are here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5082981
and look fine.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for fixing the rpmlint issues and explaining the no-binary error. I
> am happy with this for the moment.

[...]

> Concluding, all must items are fine.
> There are 2 should items still open, which I trust you will look at in a
> next update of the package.
> 
> Therefore this package is 
> 
> APPROVED

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: erlang-ranch
Short Description: Socket acceptor pool for TCP protocols
Owners: peter
Branches: f18 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc18

erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

erlang-ranch-0.6.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-ranch-0.6.2-1.fc18

erlang-ranch-0.6.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-ranch-0.6.2-1.el6

erlang-ranch-0.6.2-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

erlang-ranch-0.6.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.