Spec URL: https://github.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/epel-8-x86_64/01155216-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This package is a requirement in order to have puppet 6 in EPEL 8. I know this package is old and obsolete but is required for rubygem-cane, which is required by semantic_puppet that is required by puppet. The build was tested on copr[1]. I am in the packager group, sponsored by nirik and my mentor is smooge. 1 - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/package/rubygem-rspec-fire/ Thanks. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb
I noted some mistakes, I've just updated both Spec and SRPM. Please let me know if there's anything else I should fix. Spec URL: https://github.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire/blob/epel8/rubygem-rspec-fire.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/epel-8-x86_64/01213467-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This package is a requirement in order to have puppet 6 in EPEL 8. The build was tested on copr[1]. I am in the packager group, sponsored by nirik and my mentor is smooge. 1 - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/package/rubygem-rspec-fire/ Thanks. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb
Hi, It is better if you point to the raw spec file, not the gihub page, otherwise fedora-review can not process it (I have done this in the past too!) I have checked the spec file from the source rpm and the one you give and the changelogs are different: < * Wed Dec 18 2019 Breno Brand Fernandes <brandfbb> - 3.3.2-14 --- > * Wed Dec 18 2019 Breno Brand Fernandes <brandfbb> - 1.3.0-1 I guess a C&P error from some other rpm? Can you provide another source rpm built with the right spec? rpmlint: rubygem-rspec-fire.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C More resilient test doubles for RSpec. rubygem-rspec-fire.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.3.2-14 ['1.3.0-1.el8', '1.3.0-1'] rubygem-rspec-fire.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C More resilient test doubles for RSpec. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Note the "incoherent-version-in-changelog" fedora-review complains about "[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.", but from what I can see this package does not seem to have tests. You should drop the dependency on ruby: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/ * There SHOULD NOT be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to explicitly specify Ruby version compatibility. The automatically generated dependency on RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough. Similarly * There SHOULD NOT be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those are autogenerated. As it is now, the resulting rpms do not seem to be installable: Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (rubygem(rspec) < 4 with rubygem(rspec) >= 2.11) needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec >= 2.11 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec < 4 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch Problem 2: package rubygem-rspec-fire-doc-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch requires rubygem-rspec-fire = 1.3.0-1.el8, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides (rubygem(rspec) < 4 with rubygem(rspec) >= 2.11) needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec >= 2.11 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch - nothing provides rubygem-rspec < 4 needed by rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire/epel8/rubygem-rspec-fire.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/general-testing/epel-8-x86_64/01221429-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Hi Alejandro, Thanks for your feedback. I've just corrected the spec file and according to my mock tests, it's all good: $ rpmlint rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I updated the URL above (using the raw spec file as you told me to :) Thanks.
Hello again, Here is the review. There are three issues: * You must require rubygems on your doc package, specially because it is the owner of /usr/share/gems/ and /usr/share/gems/doc. I have checked other rubygem doc packages and they do depend on rubygems, so better add it. * You can get rid of your Requires. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_rubygems This is optional * There are no tests, but AFAIK upstream has none, so little to do here. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gems should require rubygems package Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-rspec-fire-doc See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Ruby/#RubyGems - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). ===== 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. [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. Upstream has no test suite [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [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-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch.rpm rubygem-rspec-fire-doc-1.3.0-1.el8.noarch.rpm rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/rspec-fire-1.3.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e261ed18e711b479cf926d6e0494784094e6a7e3e74a0c0b8797c98a0c9fc3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e261ed18e711b479cf926d6e0494784094e6a7e3e74a0c0b8797c98a0c9fc3c Requires -------- rubygem-rspec-fire (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (rubygem(rspec) < 4 with rubygem(rspec) >= 2.11) ruby ruby(rubygems) rubygem-rake rubygem-rspec rubygems rubygem-rspec-fire-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-rspec-fire Provides -------- rubygem-rspec-fire: rubygem(rspec-fire) rubygem-rspec-fire rubygem-rspec-fire-doc: rubygem-rspec-fire-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1794229 -o-r epel-8-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Ruby Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Haskell, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-rspec-fire/epel8/rubygem-rspec-fire.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet-6-on-EPEL-8-with-deps/epel-8-x86_64/01223578-rubygem-rspec-fire/rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8.src.rpm Hi Alejandro, Thanks again :) I updated the URLs above and also ran the fedora-review myself (I should have done that in the first place, heh :) - B
Looks good to me!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-rspec-fire
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c798c7399f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c798c7399f
rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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-EPEL-2020-c798c7399f
rubygem-rspec-fire-1.3.0-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.