https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Bug ID: 2025084 Summary: Review Request: ruby-build - Compile and install Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/ruby-build/ruby-build.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/ruby-build/ruby-build-20211109-1.fc...
Description: ruby-build is a command-line utility that makes it easy to install virtually any version of Ruby, from source.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79084589
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2025074
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025074 [Bug 2025074] Review Request: rbenv - Manage your app's Ruby environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo? | |needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com)
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Several things: - should version be prefixed with 0^ ? Since it seems upstream uses YYYYMMDD snapshots. They might switch to a proper versioning scheme later on - I was checking whether this should be noarch, then noticed: - the rbenv subpackage depends on rbenv which is arched, so having it be arched make sense - but unpacking ruby-build then grepping recursively for 'x86' results in quite a few hits
Should this package be ExclusiveArch: x86_64?
- installation issue is fine, it's just rbenv not in Rawhide yet
2025084-ruby-build/results/usr took 3m51s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ grep -rl x86 * bin/ruby-build share/ruby-build/truffleruby-21.3.0 share/ruby-build/truffleruby+graalvm-dev share/ruby-build/artichoke-dev share/ruby-build/truffleruby+graalvm-21.2.0 share/ruby-build/truffleruby-21.2.0 share/ruby-build/truffleruby-21.2.0.1 share/ruby-build/truffleruby+graalvm-21.3.0
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== 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". 578 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2025084-ruby-build/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/rbenv/libexec, /usr/lib64/rbenv [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/rbenv, /usr/lib64/rbenv/libexec [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ruby- build-rbenv [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin. [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.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.1 starting (python version = 3.11.0, NVR = mock-3.1-1.fc37)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled ccache INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/ruby-build-rbenv-20211109-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ruby-build-20211109-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/ruby-build-rbenv-20211109-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ruby-build-20211109-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-build/-/raw/4855a775cf29a175afe605ee... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a2ae1623c5941155a777f9d294d93c82aef90681b501a2a8c636a694c0b2ce6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a2ae1623c5941155a777f9d294d93c82aef90681b501a2a8c636a694c0b2ce6 https://github.com/rbenv/ruby-build/archive/v20211109/ruby-build-20211109.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73d8f628bd15dc625d6ee6af7cec5d25bdec9a572b3f3c41b736912a18e5b59b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73d8f628bd15dc625d6ee6af7cec5d25bdec9a572b3f3c41b736912a18e5b59b
Requires -------- ruby-build (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash
ruby-build-rbenv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash rbenv ruby-build
Provides -------- ruby-build: ruby-build ruby-build(x86-64)
ruby-build-rbenv: ruby-build-rbenv ruby-build-rbenv(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025084 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, PHP, C/C++, Java, Haskell, Perl, R, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084 Bug 2025084 depends on bug 2025074, which changed state.
Bug 2025074 Summary: Review Request: rbenv - Manage your app's Ruby environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025074
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com) |
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com ---
- should version be prefixed with 0^ ? Since it seems upstream uses YYYYMMDD snapshots. They might switch to a proper versioning scheme later on
I don't think so, it looks like upstream is using the date as their versioning policy (as sometimes they'll publish dotted snapshots too)
Should this package be ExclusiveArch: x86_64?
This package builds a number of ruby interpreters from source. I tested it on a aarch64 box and it works fine, so I don't think it needs ExclusiveArch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/ruby-build/ruby-build.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/ruby-build/ruby-build-20221004-1.fc...
Changelog: - update to 20221004 - add missing Recommends for ruby-build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? needinfo? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- LGTM - APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo ruby-build 2025084 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48213 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo ruby-build f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48214 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo ruby-build f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48215 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo ruby-build f35 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48216 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo ruby-build epel8 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48217 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo ruby-build epel9 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48218
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby-build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a8d5a6309b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a8d5a6309b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-10-14 17:39:22
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-a8d5a6309b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-b775c4341f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0cde6cd814 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b73adfa70d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b45c6446d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025084
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-120f5801a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com