Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/sassc.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/sassc-3.3.6-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: SassC is a wrapper around libsass used to generate a useful command-line application that can be installed and packaged for several operating systems. Fedora Account System Username: abompard Note: this package depends on #1369534
The spec looks good to me with a quick review, although I've hit an issue when doing a test mock build on EL7: Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.MDOmNi + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd sassc-3.3.6 + ruby sass-spec/sass-spec.rb -c bin/sassc --ignore-todo sass-spec/spec /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:55:in `require': cannot load such file -- minitest (LoadError) from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:55:in `require' from /builddir/build/BUILD/sassc-3.3.6/sass-spec/lib/sass_spec/runner.rb:1:in `<top (required)>' from /builddir/build/BUILD/sassc-3.3.6/sass-spec/lib/sass_spec.rb:4:in `require_relative' from /builddir/build/BUILD/sassc-3.3.6/sass-spec/lib/sass_spec.rb:4:in `<top (required)>' from sass-spec/sass-spec.rb:22:in `require_relative' from sass-spec/sass-spec.rb:22:in `<main>' I confirmed that mock has installed rubygem-minitest during the chroot setup, so I'm not sure why ruby isn't able to include it properly. Any ideas?
This looks like a bug in minitest, which had incompatible versions in the past: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23077637/why-do-we-need-to-install-minitest-gem-sometimes I tried to run ruby -e "require 'minitest'" in the mock chroot and it failed with the same error. I'll open a bug on the minitest package in EPEL. In the meantime, I'll just disable the tests in %check for EPEL.
Ah, I found the problem, on EPEL I have to use the rubygem-minitest5 package because the tests require at least version 5. I've updated the package: Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/sassc.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/sassc-3.3.6-1.fc23.src.rpm
make %{?_smp_mflags} build-shared → %make_build build-shared I'd also put the flags as arguments to make instead using export. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "Unknown or generated". 6024 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1369535-sassc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [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 %license. [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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sassc- debuginfo (not needed) [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. There's only a prerelease out after the version packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: sassc-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm sassc-debuginfo-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm sassc-3.3.6-1.fc26.src.rpm sassc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsass -> lib sass, lib-sass, Libras sassc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stylesheet -> style sheet, style-sheet, stylishness sassc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsass -> lib sass, lib-sass, Libras sassc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sassc sassc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsass -> lib sass, lib-sass, Libras sassc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stylesheet -> style sheet, style-sheet, stylishness sassc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsass -> lib sass, lib-sass, Libras 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sassc-debuginfo-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sassc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsass -> lib sass, lib-sass, Libras sassc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stylesheet -> style sheet, style-sheet, stylishness sassc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsass -> lib sass, lib-sass, Libras sassc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sassc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- sassc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libsass.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sassc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sassc: sassc sassc(x86-64) sassc-debuginfo: sassc-debuginfo sassc-debuginfo(x86-64) Package is APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sassc
sassc-3.3.6-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b38001ac0f
sassc-3.3.6-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b38001ac0f
sassc-3.3.6-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.