Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mtasaka/for_package_review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10411974-rubygem-gsk4/rubygem-gsk4.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mtasaka/for_package_review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10411974-rubygem-gsk4/rubygem-gsk4-4.3.6-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Ruby/GSK4 is a Ruby binding of GSK 4.x. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10411996 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2464119-rubygem-gsk4/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10411996-rubygem-gsk4/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mtasaka/for_package_review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10949697-rubygem-gsk4/rubygem-gsk4.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mtasaka/for_package_review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10949697-rubygem-gsk4/rubygem-gsk4-4.3.8-1.fc46.src.rpm Updated to 4.3.8 Note that the current upstream is 4.3.9, however as updating the version requires update for all other ruby-gnome series, I will do it later and so for now please review this version.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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. [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]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: gems should not require rubygems 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. BTW would suggest applying this diff: ``` diff --git a/rubygem-gsk4.spec b/rubygem-gsk4.spec index ec00eeb..06bf912 100644 --- a/rubygem-gsk4.spec +++ b/rubygem-gsk4.spec @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Documentation for %{name}. %setup -q -n %{gem_name}-%{version} -a 1 # Allow higher version of other ruby-gnome suite pkgs sed -i ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec \ - -e 's|= %{gem_ver_escaped}|>= %{gem_ver}|' + -e 's|= %{gem_ver_escaped}|>= %{gem_ver}|' %build gem build ../%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec @@ -54,14 +54,6 @@ mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir} cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \ %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/ -rm -f %{buildroot}%{gem_cache} -pushd %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir} -rm -f \ - Rakefile \ - %{gem_name}.gemspec \ - %{nil} -popd - %check cp -a %{gem_name}/test .%{gem_instdir} pushd .%{gem_instdir} @@ -78,6 +70,9 @@ popd %license %{gem_instdir}/COPYING.LIB %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md %{gem_libdir} +%exclude %{gem_cache} +%exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile +%exclude %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec %{gem_spec} %files doc ``` Also, fedora-review /w ruby plugin seems broken on f45. I had to use master from forge.
Thank you for review! Note that for now I prefer to explicitly remove files than using %exclude.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-gsk4 Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
Extra space is removed: thank you for pointing it out.
FEDORA-2026-b358874b1e (rubygem-gsk4-4.3.8-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b358874b1e
FEDORA-2026-b358874b1e (rubygem-gsk4-4.3.8-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.