Bug 1063042 - Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server
Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
unspecified Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-02-09 13:02 EST by Nitesh Narayan Lal
Modified: 2015-07-22 02:41 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-22 02:41:52 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nitesh Narayan Lal 2014-02-09 13:02:59 EST
Spec URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-websocket-0.5.0.spec
SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-websocket-0.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: EventMachine based WebSocket server
Fedora Account System Username:
Comment 1 Eduardo Mayorga 2014-02-10 19:54:01 EST
This package won't build with mock. %check section must be after %install.
Comment 2 Eduardo Mayorga 2014-02-11 18:13:45 EST
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
b6255d70a4afa8222d5c6c5a05ef12f4  em-websocket-0.5.0.gem
b6255d70a4afa8222d5c6c5a05ef12f4  em-websocket-0.5.0.gem.new
OK - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard

FAILS - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
FAILS - No rpmlint output.
FAILS - final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

FAILS - Should build in mock.
FAILS - Should build on all supported archs
FAILS - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. Group tag is deprecated since F17, you shouldn't use it anymore.
2. The package doesn't build in mock (check %check section).
3. Provides tag is missing. You need this:
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
3. em-http-request seems to be a Require, and it isn't in Fedora
4. You must remove binary extension sources and build leftovers. Add this:
# Remove the binary extension sources and build leftovers.
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir}/em-websocket.gemspec

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint rubygem-em-websocket-0.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
rubygem-em-websocket.src: E: invalid-spec-name
rubygem-em-websocket.src:56: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 56, tab: line 51)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Comment 3 Mo Morsi 2014-02-20 09:26:19 EST
Additionally:

- http_parser.rb is not yet in fedora / needs to be submitted

- related, this upstream issue affects the em-websocket & em-http-request submission:

https://github.com/igrigorik/em-websocket/pull/110

- If a new release isn't cut w/ the updated dependency we will have to patch em-websocket to include the upstream patches satisfying the dep

- Didn't see an external license file, would be nice to file an issue upstream requesting this:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Thanks
Comment 5 Nitesh Narayan Lal 2014-07-08 12:20:18 EDT
Please disregard the earlier comment, there is still work to be done here.
Comment 6 Miroslav Suchý 2015-07-21 11:01:02 EDT
Any progress here?
Comment 7 Nitesh Narayan Lal 2015-07-21 13:06:57 EDT
Nope unfortunately I am surrounded by loads of day job and other responsibilities. I didn't get time to continue this further, sorry for that.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.