https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Assume will unretire https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-hashie

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

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

Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-hashie See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

===== 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", "MIT License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/rubygem-hashie/2127693-rubygem- hashie/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [?]: 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 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: [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2

rubygem-hashie.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.3 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/hashie-5.0.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d6c4e51f2a36d4616cbc8a322d619a162d8f42815 a792596039fc95595603da CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d6c4e51f2a36d4616cbc8a322d619a162d8f42815 a792596039fc95595603da

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

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

Provides -------- rubygem-hashie: rubygem(hashie) rubygem-hashie

rubygem-hashie-doc: rubygem-hashie-doc

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2127693 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Java, fonts, C/C++, Python, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments: a) Tests do not seem to be run as done in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-hashie/blob/f35/f/rubygem-hashie.... b) May want to update https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-hashie/blob/f35/f/rubygem-hashie.... rather than generate an entirely new spec.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Yes it is helpful to capture the history as you are unretiring the package, and not making an entirely new package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #5 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Hello!

Updated SPEC: https://rcallicotte.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-hashie.spec Updated SPRM: https://rcallicotte.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-hashie-5.0.0-2.fc38.src.rpm

a) Should UPGRADING.md be placed in the documentation package?

I added this file to the doc subpackage

b) Can source1 be linked explicitly, it has a tag https://github.com/hashie/hashie/tags ?

I am following established precedent observed in about 30-ish previously built rubygems. This is explicitly archiving only the spec directory.

c) there are font files which should be packaged separately Lato-LightItalic.ttf Lato-RegularItalic.ttf SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf Lato-Light.ttf Lato-Regular.ttf SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf Corresponding packages https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lato-fonts/lato-fonts/ https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts/adobe-so... Can make these packages dependencies and add softlinks at usr/share/gems/doc/hashie-5.0.0/rdoc/fonts

I am following established precedent observed in about 30-ish previously build rubygems. I have searched the ruby-devel lists[1] and this ticket[2] was mentioned. The consensus was to keep the status quo due to the amount of re-work that would need to be done. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

d) Not sure why one still gets the warning [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin.

This might be due to fedora-review missing the ruby plugin. You can install fedora-review-plugin-ruby and that should clear the warning.

[1] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.o... [2] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #7 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Benson,

Is there any other action required by me? If there are further questions regarding the embedded fonts, I can reach out to one of the ruby-sig folks for clarification.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #9 from Robby Callicotte rcallicotte@mailbox.org --- Benson,

Other than the fonts issue, is there anything else that is keeping this package held in review status? I would like to get the build going if at all possible. :)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- gemspec file also seems to be replicated: $ ls rpms-unpacked/rubygem-hashie-doc-5.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm/usr/share/gems/gems/hashie-5.0.0/ CHANGELOG.md CONTRIBUTING.md hashie.gemspec Rakefile README.md $ ls rpms-unpacked/rubygem-hashie-5.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm/usr/share/gems/specifications/ hashie-5.0.0.gemspec

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Please also remove BuildRequires: ruby(release)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693

Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |--- Status|CLOSED |POST CC| |vondruch@redhat.com Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #16 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- What is the status here? This was never successfully build as far as I can tell:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16659