Bug 466331 - Review Request: rcov - ruby code coverage tool
Review Request: rcov - ruby code coverage tool
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-10-09 15:01 EDT by Casey Dahlin
Modified: 2014-06-18 04:46 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-11-16 09:47:21 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Casey Dahlin 2008-10-09 15:01:38 EDT
Spec URL: http://sadmac.fedorapeople.org/rcov.spec
SRPM URL: http://sadmac.fedorapeople.org/rcov-
Description: A ruby coverage tool

rcov is a ruby code coverage tool similar to gcov for C or djunit for Java. It generates reports of which lines have and have not been executed by a test suite.
Comment 1 David Carter 2008-12-18 11:51:12 EST
This is a practice review, so don't treat as final or authoritative.

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the

From the source RPM:
rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/rcov- 
rcov.src:41: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov.rb
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

rcov.src:42: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov/lowlevel.rb
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

rcov.src:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov/rant.rb
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

rcov.src:44: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov/rcovtask.rb
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

rcov.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov/report.rb
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

rcov.src:46: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov/version.rb
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings.

These should be fixed.

From the executables:
rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/rcov-*
rcov.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux/rcovrt.so 0555
A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this
message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files
included in your package.

rcov.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rcov/rcovtask.rb 0644
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed.  If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

The first error puzzles me, as it looks like standard permissions for a .so file.

You may want to verify that the shebang is required for rcovtask.rb. It looks like it should be removed.

- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .

It seems to be OK as is, but one comment: packages for languages such as ph or python start with the php- and python- prefix. There's no requirement for this for ruby packages in the current naming guidelines, but it seems to me there should be. That would make your packages ruby-rcov-*. Other reviewers may want to comment on this.

- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines


- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .


- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.


- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.


- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest


- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.


- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.

OK on x86_64 F-9.

- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,


- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.


- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.


- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

OK. The only .so isn't in the standard path, and I assume is loaded dynamically by Ruby.

- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.


- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.


- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.


- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.

See rpmlint comments above. Otherwise OK.

- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).


- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .

There's a mix of the two styles. For example:
%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

This should be fixed.

- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .


- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)


- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.


- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.


- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).


- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel

Technically, this violates the rules, but the standard ruby libraries also do this. Other reviewers may want to comment.

- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =


- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.


- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does
not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your


- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.


- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.


- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2009-03-31 09:25:06 EDT
I can't even finish building this one,     File not found: /home/limb/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rcov-

Use macros for any path you can, if for no other reason than that it will allow building and proper operation on all arches.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-07 20:54:43 EST
Still no buildable package after more than half a year; I guess this should just be closed.  I'll do that soon if there's no further response, but in the meantime I'll indicate that this fails to build.
Comment 4 Casey Dahlin 2009-11-09 09:14:44 EST
Sorry. Last time I looked at this upstream's website had vanished and I wasn't sure if the project was dead or not. I'll poke it again and see if its still worth packaging.
Comment 5 Casey Dahlin 2009-11-09 15:29:32 EST
I've pinged upstream to make sure they're still alive. In the meantime here's an updated spec/srpm.

Comment 6 Casey Dahlin 2009-11-16 09:47:21 EST
Its been a week. No reply. I'm thinking this project is stillborn. Closing.

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