Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-octocatdiff/rubygem-octocatalog-diff.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-octocatdiff/rubygem-octocatalog-diff-1.5.3-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Compile Puppet catalogs from 2 branches, versions, etc., and compare them Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen
- This trick is not necessary anymore as %setup understand .gem now: gem unpack %{SOURCE0} %setup -q -D -T -n %{gem_name}-%{version} gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec Just use now: %prep %autosetup -n %{gem_name}-%{version} %build # Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file gem build ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec - There also an ASL 2.0 part: Apache (v2.0) ------------- octocatalog-diff-1.5.3/lib/octocatalog-diff/external/pson/LICENSE Please add it to the license field and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. 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. [!]: 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)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 195 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-octocatalog-diff/review-rubygem- octocatalog-diff/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]: 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- octocatalog-diff-doc [?]: 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]: 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-octocatalog-diff-1.5.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm rubygem-octocatalog-diff-doc-1.5.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm rubygem-octocatalog-diff-1.5.3-1.fc30.src.rpm rubygem-octocatalog-diff.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-octocatalog-diff.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary octocatalog-diff 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Thank you for the comments, both items are addressed I hope: * %autosetup is used. * ASL 2.0 for the pson lib. Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-octocatdiff/rubygem-octocatalog-diff.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-octocatdiff/rubygem-octocatalog-diff-1.5.3-2.fc28.src.rpm
gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec is not needed. %{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec is already in the parent directory: %build # Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file gem build ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec
Hi, is there any reason to not pack tests? Rubygems should be tested if possible which is, since upstream uses rspec.
At least two or three deps needed for the test - making a start.
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #5) > At least two or three deps needed for the test - making a start. I'd be very surprised if you really needed pry-byebug. If it is required somewhere, I suggest you remove that line by some sed and move on. Moreover, if there are real blockers from test suite execution, it should be documented in .spec file. From guidelines "You MAY skip test suite execution when not all build dependencies are met but this MUST be documented in the specfile."
You don't want to constraint ruby versions supported by your package. This constraint is done on RPM level for Fedora. Therefore I hope you can avoid the ruby_dep.
Created attachment 1483350 [details] .spec file with tests enabled This is where I got trying to execute the test suite without too many dependencies. So far, it does not look really positive :/ ~~~ Finished in 3 minutes 47 seconds (files took 1.03 seconds to load) 1741 examples, 203 failures, 29 pending ~~~ I don't have a reason to dig deeper. Nevertheless, I still can't see where the pry-debug and ruby_dep dependencies you are referencing here coming from because so far it does not appear these are required for this package.
Just reading this, Dependency chain tests was: octocatlog rquires rspec-retry rspec-retry requires pry-debug and guard-rspec guard-rspec requires gem_isolater gem_isolater requires ruby_dep So gem_isolater next....
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #9) > octocatlog rquires rspec-retry But typically it is much easier to do: ~~~ # rspec-retry is not available in Fedora yet. sed -i "/require 'rspec\/retry'/ s/^/#/" spec/spec_helper.rb ~~~ The result of the test suite won't be different. Of course, some flaky tests might fail your build, but anyway. > rspec-retry requires pry-debug and guard-rspec Again, pry-debug is just development dependency, which is not used during the test run at all. So even if rspec-retry might be useful, the pry-debug is not useful for our purposes at all. > guard-rspec requires gem_isolater Similarly this, this is really useful just for development, to run the test suite when something changes on the FS, this is definitely this case.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
Thank you for the comments on this up to now. Am afraid I have lost interest in doing this now.