Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-sys-uname/rawhide/rubygem-sys-uname.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-sys-uname/raw/rawhide/rubygem-sys-uname-1.2.2-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: pvalena Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75235792 Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/2683350 Checks: - Tests: ok - Syntax check: ok - Reverse dependencies: ok - Smoke test: ok - rpmlint: ok _ _ _ _ Test log: https://git.io/Jus7f Additional information: This package is needed for new package rubygem-cucumber-create-meta.
Taking for a review.
* invalid license: License should be ASL 2.0 * Sources verification: Looks like upstream ships certificate and the gem is signed, so let's verify the sources - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification - we can verify using gem install https://guides.rubygems.org/security/#using-gems - the cert file should probably be moved to `/etc/pki/`, but the guide for that is quite old. - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#pem-certificate Otherwise the package LGTM. Fedora review output: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains Requires: ruby(release). Reviewer note: Final requires are sane, see attachment. ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jprokop/projects/packaging/review/2001682-rubygem-sys- uname/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/doc, /usr/share/gems [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 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 Reviewer note: generated rdoc docs contain fonts, there is no fix currently [-]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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: [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. [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/sys-uname-1.2.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4c26d36b66746872a14b050015f4c22ce43f493a205ab1eeb50054976711663e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4c26d36b66746872a14b050015f4c22ce43f493a205ab1eeb50054976711663e Requires -------- rubygem-sys-uname (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (rubygem(ffi) >= 1.1 with rubygem(ffi) < 2) ruby(rubygems) rubygem-sys-uname-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-sys-uname Provides -------- rubygem-sys-uname: rubygem(sys-uname) rubygem-sys-uname rubygem-sys-uname-doc: rubygem-sys-uname-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2001682 -P Ruby Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Ruby Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, fonts, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jarek Prokop from comment #2) > * invalid license: License should be ASL 2.0 I wonder if gem2rpm should have some hash table... > > * Sources verification: Looks like upstream ships certificate and the gem is > signed, so let's verify the sources > - > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_source_file_verification > - we can verify using gem install > https://guides.rubygems.org/security/#using-gems > - the cert file should probably be moved to `/etc/pki/`, but the guide for > that is quite old. > - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#pem-certificate I'll remove it instead. It doesn't make sense to check the .gem file using a cert included in the .gem ... we'd have to add as an additional source. Thanks for spotting! > > Otherwise the package LGTM. > Thanks! Changes: ``` --- a/rubygem-sys-uname.spec +++ b/rubygem-sys-uname.spec @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Name: rubygem-%{gem_name} Version: 1.2.2 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: An interface for returning uname (platform) information -License: Apache-2.0 +License: ASL 2.0 URL: http://github.com/djberg96/sys-uname Source0: https://rubygems.org/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem BuildRequires: ruby(release) @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ popd %{gem_instdir}/CHANGES.md %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE %{gem_instdir}/MANIFEST.md -%{gem_instdir}/certs +%exclude %{gem_instdir}/certs %{gem_libdir} %exclude %{gem_cache} %{gem_spec} ``` https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/2736351
(I've updated the content of the links in the description.)
Thanks, Package approved!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-sys-uname