Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl-2.4.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Ruby FFI wrapper around YAJL 2.x. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67050984
*** Bug 1114146 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Taking this review. Some initial issues: Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). - 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. Note: License file MIT-LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Installation errors ------------------- Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libyajl.so.2()(x86-64) needed by rubygem-ffi-yajl-2.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64 Is libyajl being reviewed? It should probably be marked as a blocker
Ah, you want this: $ sudo dnf repoquery --repo rawhide --provides yajl libyajl.so.2 libyajl.so.2()(64bit) yajl = 2.1.0-16.fc34 yajl(x86-32) = 2.1.0-16.fc34 yajl(x86-64) = 2.1.0-16.fc34 Not sure what's best here. either hardcode whether you're matching agaist 64-bit or 32-bit based on %ifarch, or... just don't specify the architecture at all.
This is the way vetted by RPM folks: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ruby-vips/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem-ruby-vips.spec#_16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870208#c5
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5) > This is the way vetted by RPM folks: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ruby-vips/blob/rawhide/f/rubygem- > ruby-vips.spec#_16 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870208#c5 And this should be probably used also as a BR instead of the yajl-devel. Any volunteer to formalize this method via some macro and documenting it in packaging guidelines? ;)
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl-2.4.0-2.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Fix requires for yail - Add missing requires on ruby(release) - Install additional license file
Note: /usr/bin/ffi-yajl-bench doesn't actually run as it requires a bunch of other gems that aren't packaged yet (oj, yajl-ruby, and something called "perftools.rb" I can't find anywhere). I'm looking into that now.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #8) > Note: /usr/bin/ffi-yajl-bench doesn't actually run This sounds as some development tool. Should it even be installed by default?
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.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.