Bug 2337383 - Review Request: rubygem-useragent - HTTP User Agent parser
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-useragent - HTTP User Agent parser
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jarek Prokop
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/gshutler/useragent
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-01-13 16:27 UTC by Vít Ondruch
Modified: 2025-01-15 14:23 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-useragent-0.16.11-1.fc42
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-01-15 14:23:20 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jprokop: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Vít Ondruch 2025-01-13 16:27:31 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-useragent.git/plain/rubygem-useragent.spec?id=f6dfedeeef259497f3ab510fc806c83576df9ad8
SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/~vondruch/rubygem-useragent-0.16.11-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: HTTP User Agent parser
Fedora Account System Username: vondruch

This will be dependency of rubygem-actionpack 7.1+ (part of Ruby on Rails)

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-01-13 16:31:58 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8509572
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2337383-rubygem-useragent/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08509572-rubygem-useragent/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Jarek Prokop 2025-01-14 07:32:07 UTC
Taking for review.

Comment 3 Jarek Prokop 2025-01-14 14:09:00 UTC
Package approved!

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rubygem-
     useragent/licensecheck.txt
     Only spec/ files that are not shipped (and are also under MIT since it comes from the same repo)
[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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
     Note: noarch package.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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:
[!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin.
     Note: went through manually, MUST items OK
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-useragent-0.16.11-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-useragent-doc-0.16.11-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-useragent-0.16.11-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpnimcrywl')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

rubygem-useragent.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-useragent.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: useragent-0.16.11-spec.tar.gz
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rubygem-useragent".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "rubygem-useragent-doc".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/useragent-0.16.11.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 700e6413ad4bb954bb63547fa098dddf7b0ebe75b40cc6f93b8d54255b173844
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 700e6413ad4bb954bb63547fa098dddf7b0ebe75b40cc6f93b8d54255b173844


Requires
--------
rubygem-useragent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)

rubygem-useragent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-useragent



Provides
--------
rubygem-useragent:
    rubygem(useragent)
    rubygem-useragent

rubygem-useragent-doc:
    rubygem-useragent-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rubygem-useragent --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-01-15 11:07:19 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-useragent


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.