Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rabbit-related/rubygem-rabbit.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rabbit-related/rubygem-rabbit-2.1.1-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Rabbit is an RD-document-based presentation application. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Copr build: http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mtasaka/rabbit-test/
(For F-20: rubygem-gettext-3.0.2-6.fc20.1 (FEDORA-2013-21126, now in testing) is needed to build this correctly)
(Although some BuildRequires packages are still under testing repository on F-20 and F-19, they are already in koji buildroot because I made them have override tag, so scratch build for this package on koji should be testable on F-21/20/19)
Hi, I can take this review.
No SCM request found.
Whoops, I'm bad with those flags :)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The rabbirc command requires the net-irc Gem, and it will crash without it. I'm thinking you should remove rabbirc from the package until we can ship that Gem in Fedora. (It looks like net-irc has not had any updates in four years, by the way :( - The Debian logos at /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/data/rabbit/ are technically LGPLv3+ or CC-BY. See http://www.debian.org/logos/index.en.html#open-use - lib/rabbit/trackball.rb looks to be under the MIT license. - /usr/bin/rabbit needs a corresponding .desktop file. - When I ran /usr/bin/rabbit from a terminal with a PDF file as an argument, it printed out a message: [INFO] Installing gem: rabbit-theme-questionnaire The PDF did have the word "Questionnaire" in its filename. Maybe that triggered this? At any rate, it looks like the software (lib/rabbit/gem-finder.rb) tries to automatically install things into Gem.dir. After I ran rabbit I couldn't find a rabbit-theme-questionnaire in my Gem.dir, but I'm thinking you might want to patch that part out that part of the code to be safe. The rest of the issues are not blocking, just suggestions: - I love the BothRequires macro :) Can you make it %global rather than %define? - Please filter /usr/bin/env from Provides. - You can remove the "generated by gem2rpm" comment at the top of the spec file. - The spec file comments indicate that the zero-length files might be left in intentionally. What is the purpose of the zero-length files? Can you please document this in the spec? - What is the GPG file for? It seems to me that you could remove it from the binary packages, or else document the reason for its existence in the spec. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. See above about trackball.rb under the MIT. [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. See above about trackball.rb under the MIT. [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 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 %doc. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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. [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== 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). With the exception of /usr/bin/env, noted above. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define BothRequires() Requires: %1 BuildRequires: %1 %{nil} [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. Ruby: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-rabbit-2.1.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-rabbit-doc-2.1.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-rabbit-2.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-rabbit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/data/rabbit/image/clear-blue-images/clear-blue-images.rb rubygem-rabbit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/data/rabbit/image/ranguba-images/ranguba-images.rb rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit-slide rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit-command rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit-theme rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbirc rubygem-rabbit-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/misc/github-post-receiver/tmp/restart.txt rubygem-rabbit.src: W: invalid-url Source1: rubygem-rabbit-2.1.1-test-missing-files.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-rabbit rubygem-rabbit-doc rubygem-rabbit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/data/rabbit/image/clear-blue-images/clear-blue-images.rb rubygem-rabbit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/data/rabbit/image/ranguba-images/ranguba-images.rb rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit-slide rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit-command rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit-theme rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbit rubygem-rabbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rabbirc rubygem-rabbit-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/misc/github-post-receiver/tmp/restart.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-rabbit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(coderay) rubygem(faraday) rubygem(gettext) rubygem(gtk2) rubygem(hikidoc) rubygem(kramdown) rubygem(nokogiri) rubygem(poppler) rubygem(rdtool) rubygem(rsvg2) rubygem(rttool) rubygem-rabbit-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env rubygem-rabbit Provides -------- rubygem-rabbit: rubygem(rabbit) rubygem-rabbit rubygem-rabbit-doc: rubygem-rabbit-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/rabbit-2.1.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d856916809c8dc1fd976ad4854805b6baba5640ca650f8fccc09ea342392fd49 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d856916809c8dc1fd976ad4854805b6baba5640ca650f8fccc09ea342392fd49 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -n rubygem-rabbit -x CheckDirectoryRequire,CheckOwnDirs Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Thank you for comments! Before I modify my package: (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #6) > - The rabbirc command requires the net-irc Gem, and it will crash without it. > I'm thinking you should remove rabbirc from the package until we can ship > that Gem in Fedora. (It looks like net-irc has not had any updates in four > years, by the way :( - I will remove this for now > - The Debian logos at /usr/share/gems/gems/rabbit-2.1.1/data/rabbit/ are > technically LGPLv3+ or CC-BY. See > http://www.debian.org/logos/index.en.html#open-use - Well, rabbbit git history says that this logos were added 3 years ago, while debian (swirl) logo relicensing happened at least after 2012: http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2012/08/msg00044.html The original license was effectively MIT: http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs/main/d/desktop-base/desktop-base_6.0.5squeeze1_copyright And "debian" character logo is under this license. > - lib/rabbit/trackball.rb looks to be under the MIT license. - The whole rabbit license is under GPLv2+ (except for artificial image files, some of them are under CC-BY), and we don't have to write "weaker" licenses than GPL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F > - /usr/bin/rabbit needs a corresponding .desktop file. - rabbit always needs .rd files or so as its argument, just launching rabbit without argument just launches file selection GUI, so I don't think desktop file is needed. (maybe mimetype registration can be used - however I think using some file manager and using "Open with this program" will suffice.) > - When I ran /usr/bin/rabbit from a terminal with a PDF file as an argument, > it > printed out a message: > [INFO] > Installing gem: rabbit-theme-questionnaire > The PDF did have the word "Questionnaire" in its filename. Maybe that > triggered this? > At any rate, it looks like the software (lib/rabbit/gem-finder.rb) tries to > automatically install things into Gem.dir. After I ran rabbit I couldn't > find > a rabbit-theme-questionnaire in my Gem.dir, but I'm thinking you might want > to patch that part out that part of the code to be safe. - First of all, (while file selection seems to show pdf files as selection entry), I don't know well rabbit handles pdf, so I want to hold it as it is for now (needs investigating) > The rest of the issues are not blocking, just suggestions: > > - I love the BothRequires macro :) Can you make it %global rather than > %define? - For function (parameterized macro), it seems that %define is safer: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2009-May/006035.html > - Please filter /usr/bin/env from Provides. - Well, I don't see "Provides" has /usr/bin/env. Would you check this? > - You can remove the "generated by gem2rpm" comment at the top of the spec > file. - Will remove next time > - The spec file comments indicate that the zero-length files might be left in > intentionally. What is the purpose of the zero-length files? Can you please > document this in the spec? - Just it is unclear to me this I can _really_ remove these files (as I have already seen that removing zero files really caused problems...) so unless it becomes clear for me, I want to leave these as they are. > - What is the GPG file for? It seems to me that you could remove it from the > binary packages, or else document the reason for its existence in the spec. - Well, I don't think we have to dare to remove this file...
Thanks for addressing my questions. I still think the package should have a .desktop file, but I understand your reasoning for not doing shipping one at this time. Based on your responses, I don't see any remaining blockers, so package APPROVED. > > - Please filter /usr/bin/env from Provides. > - Well, I don't see "Provides" has /usr/bin/env. Would you check this? I'm wrong, sorry. It's in Requires rather than Provides. > > - What is the GPG file for? It seems to me that you could remove it from the > > binary packages, or else document the reason for its existence in the spec. > > - Well, I don't think we have to dare to remove this file... It just seems odd that Fedora ships a file without anyone understanding the purpose for doing so, particularly something security-related like a GPG key. I can't find a reason myself, so I'll defer to you as the package's maintainer.
Okay, thank you. I will reconsider your suggestion when importing this into Fedora git (and at least modify what I said I would modify) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rabbit Short Description: RD-document-based presentation application Owners: mtasaka Branches: f19 f20
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Rebuilt on all branches, in testing on stable branches, closing. Thank you for review and git procedure.