Hide Forgot
Description: Notifications, Internals, Logging, Probe, and essential Celluloid pieces demanding Supervision. spec file: https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-celluloid-essentials/rubygem-celluloid-essentials.spec srpm file: https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-celluloid-essentials/rubygem-celluloid-essentials-0.20.5-1.fc24.src.rpm FAS name: germano
I have first packaged rubygem-essentials without having enforced the BuildRequires rubygem-timers version. The build went fine, then I found out that I have missed to add the rubygem-timers version enforcement. I am waiting for rubygem-timers maintainers to release the 4.1.1 version
Hi I reviewed it! # Summary - Dot files. You can do following way to prevenet rpmlint warnings "hidden-file-or-dir", removing the lines %{gem_instdir}/.gitmodules, and etc. I would recommend you use rpmlint tool by yourself. ``` %files ... %exclude %{gem_instdir}/.* ... ``` - Group tag Personally I have never added Group in the spec file. So, could you tell me why it is needed? - I think that you can remove the comment out lines "# BuildRequires: *" to simplify though it is generated from gem2rpm template. - Add test logic in %check section. Upstream has test logic. So, you can add the test logic. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Running_test_suites See .travis.yml, spec/, and https://travis-ci.org/celluloid/celluloid-essentials I think first step to run the test, is run the upstream test on your local, Because of this error. ``` $ git clone git@github.com:celluloid/celluloid-essentials.git $ cd celluloid-essentials/ $ bundle install --path vendor/bundle [!] There was an error parsing `Gemfile`: cannot load such file -- /home/jaruga/git/celluloid-essentials/culture/sync. Bundler cannot continue. # from /home/jaruga/git/celluloid-essentials/Gemfile:1 # ------------------------------------------- > require File.expand_path("../culture/sync", __FILE__) # Celluloid::Sync::Gemfile[self] # ------------------------------------------- ``` - %files section I want to suggest the way - %files: only License document, and minimam files to run the library. - %files doc: other documents. - %{gem_instdir}/CHANGES.md Move to %files doc section with %doc %{gem_instdir}/CHANGES.md - %{gem_instdir}/tasks Move to %files doc # The result of Fedora review $ fedora-review -b 1370096 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [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. [X]: 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. [X]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: 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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- celluloid-essentials-doc [X]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.18 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata Mock Version: 1.2.18 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.18 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1370096-rubygem-celluloid-essentials/results/rubygem-celluloid-essentials-doc-0.20.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1370096-rubygem-celluloid-essentials/results/rubygem-celluloid-essentials-0.20.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1370096-rubygem-celluloid-essentials/results/rubygem-celluloid-essentials-doc-0.20.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /home/jaruga/git/fedora-packages/review/1370096-rubygem-celluloid-essentials/results/rubygem-celluloid-essentials-0.20.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-celluloid-essentials-0.20.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-celluloid-essentials-doc-0.20.5-1.fc26.noarch.rpm rubygem-celluloid-essentials-0.20.5-1.fc26.src.rpm rubygem-celluloid-essentials.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superstructural -> super structural, super-structural, superstructure rubygem-celluloid-essentials.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-celluloid-essentials.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/celluloid-essentials-0.20.5/.env-dev rubygem-celluloid-essentials.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/celluloid-essentials-0.20.5/.rspec rubygem-celluloid-essentials.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/celluloid-essentials-0.20.5/.gitmodules rubygem-celluloid-essentials.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/celluloid-essentials-0.20.5/.env-ci rubygem-celluloid-essentials.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superstructural -> super structural, super-structural, superstructure 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-celluloid-essentials-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-celluloid-essentials rubygem-celluloid-essentials (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(timers) Provides -------- rubygem-celluloid-essentials-doc: rubygem-celluloid-essentials-doc rubygem-celluloid-essentials: rubygem(celluloid-essentials) rubygem-celluloid-essentials Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/celluloid-essentials-0.20.5.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3388206d134eaf2ec262f537bbdefb9e855956039888c0f901b2493ece1d97d0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3388206d134eaf2ec262f537bbdefb9e855956039888c0f901b2493ece1d97d0 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1370096 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Let's talk first about tests, because I think it is the biggest part to deal with. If I am right, enabling tests will require all "development dependencies" you can see at [1]. Many of them are not available in Fedora repositories [1]: https://rubygems.org/gems/celluloid-essentials/versions/0.20.5
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #3) > If I am right, enabling tests will require all "development dependencies" > you can see at [1]. Many of them are not available in Fedora repositories Well, you probably want to be more precise about what steps you have taken to enable the tests and what issues you were facing. You will definitely need some of the dependencies, but you won't need most of them. It is also possible, the you will need to do some boostrapping round before you'll be able to enable the tests, but I think it is worth of the effort.
BTW from the list of dependencies, I guess that it would be possible to avoid following packages: benchmark_suite >= 0 bundler >= 0 coveralls >= 0 guard-rspec >= 0 pry >= 0 rake >= 0 rubocop >= 0 transpec >= 0 Not sure about these: dotenv >= 0 nenv >= 0 The remaining packages might be just circular dependencies with culluloid* packages and RSpec. Not bad IMO.
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #3) > Let's talk first about tests, because I think it is the biggest part to deal > with. > If I am right, enabling tests will require all "development dependencies" > you can see at [1]. Many of them are not available in Fedora repositories > > [1]: https://rubygems.org/gems/celluloid-essentials/versions/0.20.5 I think enabling tests will not require all "development dependencies", as Vit said. We do not test about benchmark, coverage, static code analysis (rubocop and etc). We also do not use Bundler for our test in check section. We want to test the logic, because there is often our environment specified issue. We sometimes comment out a test case in the test suite with "sed" command, and etc, when it needs a development dependency that is not available in Fedora. There are some tricky but typical techniques to package RPM. For reference, you can see "sed" command lines in check section. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rubygem-sprockets.git/tree/rubygem-sprockets.spec http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rubygem-puma.git/tree/rubygem-puma.spec If you want to see more sample spec files about rubygem-*, for example you can search by below search query on Google, to find those. ``` "rubygem-*.git" sed site:pkgs.fedoraproject.org filetype:spec ``` I think the adding test logic in check section may be a hard process for you, especially if you are first time to do it. But after you have experienced several packages, you may be accustomed to do it.
Ok I will study how to implement tests in celluloid-essentials
How is the status?
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #8) > How is the status? Until the end of the week I should send an email to upstream asking them suggestions on how to proceed because at the moment I could not manage to package a software with those git submodules
Okay!
I have just wrote to celluloid developers. I am waiting for a reply
At https://groups.google.com/d/msg/celluloid-ruby/q-zj1H34e4A/U2b3uCTXDQAJ Donovan Keme said "We are expecting to refactor to avoid submodules, but not sure when." I replied that I will wait for a refactor before trying again to package celluloid. I think that for the moment we could close the bugreport as "Won't fix" and then in future re-open it to proceed with the packaging.
Germano, As you are reporter of this ticket, you can do close the bugreport by yourself. It's up to you.
Comment #12