https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143315 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch ===== 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/fedora-review/2143315-rubygem-gtk4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: 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. 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 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 Ruby: [x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated. [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). [x]: Gem package does not contain Requires: ruby(release). ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [!]: 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: [?]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-gtk4-4.0.3-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm rubygem-gtk4-doc-4.0.3-2.fc38.noarch.rpm rubygem-gtk4-debuginfo-4.0.3-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm rubygem-gtk4-debugsource-4.0.3-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm rubygem-gtk4-4.0.3-2.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpnxxg2y13')] checks: 31, packages: 5 rubygem-gtk4.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so rubygem-gtk4.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: gtk4-4.0.3-test-missing-files.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rubygem-gtk4-debuginfo-4.0.3-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp4l_3klwv')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 4 rubygem-gtk4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so rbgobj_gc_mark_instance (/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so) rubygem-gtk4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so rbgobj_register_mark_func (/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so) rubygem-gtk4.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 8.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-gtk4: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/gtk4-4.0.3.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b2cc7efed6cf5d2e6738391d2054b960dca79fbd6513a517ef4216b1635f004e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2cc7efed6cf5d2e6738391d2054b960dca79fbd6513a517ef4216b1635f004e Requires -------- rubygem-gtk4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.3.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(atk) rubygem(gdk4) rubygem-gtk4-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ruby rubygem-gtk4 rubygem-gtk4-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-gtk4-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rubygem-gtk4: rubygem(gtk4) rubygem-gtk4 rubygem-gtk4(x86-64) rubygem-gtk4-doc: rubygem-gtk4-doc rubygem-gtk4-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rubygem-gtk4-debuginfo rubygem-gtk4-debuginfo(x86-64) rubygem-gtk4-debugsource: rubygem-gtk4-debugsource rubygem-gtk4-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143315 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Ruby Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Python, R, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH $ rpmlint rubygem-gtk4-4.0.3-2.fc38.src.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1 rubygem-gtk4.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: gtk4-4.0.3-test-missing-files.tar.gz =================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =================== $ rpmlint rubygem-gtk4-4.0.3-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1 rubygem-gtk4.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/gtk4-4.0.3/gtk4.so =================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =================== $ rpmlint rubygem-gtk4-doc-4.0.3-2.fc38.noarch.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1 =================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =================== Comments: a) Timestamps are not preserved, but this is expected for gem_install b) Maybe helpful to add MIT license for darkfish used in rdoc, as per the link in the spec file. c) Noarch flag seems spurious as there are C extensions d) Maybe helpful to enable aarch64 builds in your copr repository. e) Not a blocker, but may wish to use %exclude %{gem_cache} -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143315 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
