Bug 1063042 - Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-02-09 18:02 UTC by Nitesh Narayan Lal
Modified: 2015-07-22 06:41 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-22 06:41:52 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nitesh Narayan Lal 2014-02-09 18:02:59 UTC
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 2014-02-11 00:54:01 UTC
This package won't build with mock. %check section must be after %install.

Comment 2 Eduardo Mayorga 2014-02-11 23:13:45 UTC
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 14:26:19 UTC
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 16:20:18 UTC
Please disregard the earlier comment, there is still work to be done here.

Comment 6 Miroslav Suchý 2015-07-21 15:01:02 UTC
Any progress here?

Comment 7 Nitesh Narayan Lal 2015-07-21 17:06:57 UTC
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.