Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/decathorpe/rubygems-staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00762019-rubygem-ruby-progressbar/rubygem-ruby-progressbar.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/decathorpe/rubygems-staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00762019-rubygem-ruby-progressbar/rubygem-ruby-progressbar-1.9.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Ruby/ProgressBar is an extremely flexible text progress bar library for Ruby. The output can be customized with a flexible formatting system including: percentage, bars of various formats, elapsed time and estimated time remaining. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27365025 Note: This is a different gem than the already packaged "progressbar". Both are available through rubygems.org - and confusingly, both have the same version, too.
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). - Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage ===== 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-ruby-progressbar/review-rubygem- ruby-progressbar/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [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-ruby-progressbar-1.9.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm rubygem-ruby-progressbar-doc-1.9.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm rubygem-ruby-progressbar-1.9.0-1.fc29.src.rpm rubygem-ruby-progressbar.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rubygem-ruby-progressbar-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jfelchner/ruby-progressbar <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-ruby-progressbar.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jfelchner/ruby-progressbar <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> rubygem-ruby-progressbar.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ruby-progressbar
Built for rawhide. Thanks! https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1088579
This should not happen :/ We have rubygem-progressbar, which has been merged into rubygem-ruby-progressbar, but these two are the same ATM. It does not make any sense to have both in Fedora.
Ah, I see - the two upstream projects merged, and progressbar was subsumed into ruby-progressbar. However, the rubygem-progressbar package is based on the *really* old 0.21 release of the progressbar gem from 2013, and the package hasn't been touched since you updated it in 2014. According to a quick repository query, nothing actually depends on the old package anymore, so what do you think about just retiring it?
Ah, sorry for clearing the needinfo flag, I mistakenly thought it was addressed to me :/
Well, I thought that current rubygem-ruby-progressbar needs much dependency, but after looking the gem carefully they are all "development" dependency, not "runtime" dependency... Well, actually ruby-progressbar and progressbar are now same, and ruby-progressbar upstream says they have both the same API: https://github.com/jfelchner/ruby-progressbar/wiki/progressbar-Has-Been-Merged-Into-ruby-progressbar Also I also checked the dependency and currently no package depends on rubygem-progressbar, so I am also for retiring rubygem-progressbar on F-29+ .
*** Bug 1372926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #7) > Also I also checked the dependency and currently no package depends on > rubygem-progressbar, so I am also for retiring rubygem-progressbar on F-29+ . Then rubygem-ruby-progressbar should probably Obsolete/Provide rubygem(progressbar) ...
Since it's not a drop-in replacement, I think that "Provides: rubygem-progressbar" is not correct, but "Obsoletes: rubygem-progessbar" should be good. If you want, I can add that change with the next build. I can give commit access to my ruby packages to the ruby SIG too, if that would help. (what's the right group name?)