Bug 1554033 - Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - EventMachine WebSocket Client
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - EventMachine WebSocket Client
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1063047 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-03-10 21:19 UTC by Jaroslav Prokop
Modified: 2018-05-03 07:30 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-em-websocket-client-0.1.2-1.fc29
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-03-12 20:43:27 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
eclipseo: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jaroslav Prokop 2018-03-10 21:19:19 UTC
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/jackorp/rubygem-em-websocket-client/raw/c6d366126f95b385bbe9f41ca6e08669ab4e55e7/rubygem-em-websocket-client.spec
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5813/25615813/rubygem-em-websocket-client-0.1.2-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description: A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine.
Fedora Account System Username: jackorp

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-03-11 19:19:49 UTC
Package approved.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-em-websocket-client/review-rubygem-
     em-websocket-client/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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

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).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

Ruby:
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[-]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-em-websocket-client-0.1.2-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-em-websocket-client-doc-0.1.2-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-em-websocket-client-0.1.2-1.fc29.src.rpm
rubygem-em-websocket-client.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-em-websocket-client-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/em-websocket-client-0.1.2/.document
rubygem-em-websocket-client.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %check
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-03-12 16:24:15 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-em-websocket-client

Comment 3 Jaroslav Prokop 2018-03-12 20:43:27 UTC
Thanks for the review!

Comment 4 Vít Ondruch 2018-05-03 07:30:42 UTC
*** Bug 1063047 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


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