Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbenv/rbenv.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rbenv/rbenv-1.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Use rbenv to pick a Ruby version for your application and guarantee that your development environment matches production. Put rbenv to work with Bundler for painless Ruby upgrades and bulletproof deployments. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79084607
LGTM - APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2025074-rbenv/licensecheck.txt => should be fine. shobj-conf only used during build [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/rbenv/-/raw/e31f66758a2342415b74791c9080691f5f705b75/debian/rbenv.pod : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48d7e4daba8e67f4c6782cb4fb9b8da6f1d7d3495f1376ef4a7a4929328ec57d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48d7e4daba8e67f4c6782cb4fb9b8da6f1d7d3495f1376ef4a7a4929328ec57d https://github.com/rbenv/rbenv/archive/v1.2.0/rbenv-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f3a31b8a73c174e3e877ccc1ea453d966b4d810a2aadcd4d8c460bc9ec85e0c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f3a31b8a73c174e3e877ccc1ea453d966b4d810a2aadcd4d8c460bc9ec85e0c Requires -------- rbenv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rbenv-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rbenv-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rbenv: rbenv rbenv(x86-64) rbenv-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rbenv-debuginfo rbenv-debuginfo(x86-64) rbenv-debugsource: rbenv-debugsource rbenv-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025074 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, PHP, R, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rbenv 2025074 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48203 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo rbenv f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48204 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo rbenv f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48205 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo rbenv f35 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48206 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo rbenv epel8 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48207 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo rbenv epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48208
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rbenv
FEDORA-2022-dddb195274 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dddb195274
FEDORA-2022-dddb195274 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3
FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f
FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d
FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Just saw this landed in Fedora, but I have a few remarks: 1) It seems that upstream has introduced their man pages recently: https://github.com/rbenv/rbenv/pull/1438 2) I have not tried, but I suspect that the Bash completion is not enabled. Or is it?
FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.