https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718 --- Comment #3 from Jun Aruga <jaruga@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for your review. (In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #2) > * Is it necessary to unpack+rebuild the gem? > ``` > gem unpack %{SOURCE0} > . . . > gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec > ``` > instead of > ``` > %setup -q -c -T > %gem_install -n %{SOURCE0} > ``` The "unpack+rebuild" is based on the template of gem2rpm. But I will change its logic to your suggested simpler one. > * %description contains usage recommendations, which should be better > included in README.Fedora file[1] instead of %description. Ok, I will update %description to be shorten. And add README.Fedora to %files doc section. > * %files include > ``` > %{gem_instdir}/DEPLOYMENT.md > %{gem_instdir}/Manifest.txt > ``` > which should be IMO in doc subpackages. Yes, you are correct. It was my mistake. I will move those to the doc subpackage. > *** build.log errors > * In %build section there is > ``` > To see why this extension failed to compile, please check the mkmf.log which > can be found here: > /builddir/build/BUILD/puma-3.6.0/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/mkmf.log > ``` > But the .so is packaged. Is this false positive? Let me check it. > * In %install section: > ``` > cpio: > puma-3.6.0/usr/share/gems/gems/puma-3.6.0/ext/puma_http11/ext/puma_http11/ > http11_parser.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory > cpio: > puma-3.6.0/usr/share/gems/gems/puma-3.6.0/ext/puma_http11/ext/puma_http11/ > http11_parser.rl: Cannot stat: No such file or directory > ``` > Is this also false positive? Let me check it. > References > ========== > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Summary_and_description > > > Result > ====== > * I have tested the package with a sample app. Works as expected. > * Above are only recommendations. > * There are no blockers, therefore I APPROVE this package. Ok, thanks! > Legend > ====== > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable > > > ===== MUST items ===== > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > [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. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: 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. > [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. > [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > [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 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. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: rubygem-puma-3.6.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > rubygem-puma-doc-3.6.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm > rubygem-puma-debuginfo-3.6.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > rubygem-puma-3.6.0-1.fc26.src.rpm > rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-documentation > rubygem-puma.x86_64: E: zero-length > /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/gem.build_complete > rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary puma > rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pumactl > rubygem-puma.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: > rubygem-puma-3.6.0-enable-log-for-tests.patch > rubygem-puma.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: > rubygem-puma-3.6.0-update-testhelp-path.patch > rubygem-puma.src: W: invalid-url Source1: puma-3.6.0-tests.tgz > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: rubygem-puma-debuginfo-3.6.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-documentation > rubygem-puma.x86_64: E: zero-length > /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/gem.build_complete > rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary puma > rubygem-puma.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pumactl > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://rubygems.org/gems/puma-3.6.0.gem : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 298d7b9122fd9c4aa78bf01d8a635122083963e53262975c0052862c87b7ace6 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 298d7b9122fd9c4aa78bf01d8a635122083963e53262975c0052862c87b7ace6 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ > Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, > R, PHP > Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx