[Bug 1348162] New: Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Bug ID: 1348162
           Summary: Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS
                    library
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Description: Net-DNS is a pure Ruby DNS library, with a clean OO interface and
an extensible API.

Spec:
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net...

Source RPM:
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net...

FAS name: germano

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Germano Massullo  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |1348005

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348005
[Bug 1348005] Review Request: rubygem-bettercap - A complete, modular,
portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
TODO list:
- Add LICENSE file
- Align spec file inside and outside the sprm package

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text

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

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

===== 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.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net-
     dns/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
     /usr/share/gems/doc
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
     net-dns-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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:
[!]: When checking ruby code, install the ruby plugin.
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-net-dns-doc-0.8.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL
rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-net-dns-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL
rubygem-net-dns.src: W: invalid-license BSDL
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL
rubygem-net-dns.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-net-dns-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSDL
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net-dns/srpm/rubygem-net-dns.spec    2016-07-04
21:55:07.924777404 +0100
+++ /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net-dns/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-net-dns.spec   
2016-06-20 10:35:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -5,4 +5,5 @@
 Release: 1%{?dist}
 Summary: Pure Ruby DNS library
+Group: Development/Languages
 License: BSDL
 URL: http://github.com/bluemonk/net-dns
@@ -21,4 +22,5 @@
 %package doc
 Summary: Documentation for %{name}
+Group: Documentation
 Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
 BuildArch: noarch

Requires
--------
rubygem-net-dns (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    ruby(rubygems)

rubygem-net-dns-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-net-dns

Provides
--------
rubygem-net-dns:
    rubygem(net-dns)
    rubygem-net-dns

rubygem-net-dns-doc:
    rubygem-net-dns-doc

Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/net-dns-0.8.0.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c92df500b1c704bfbfed608f8b196c6fd50353c9b8eb8bd9bae0f906b7a1ca8a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c92df500b1c704bfbfed608f8b196c6fd50353c9b8eb8bd9bae0f906b7a1ca8a

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1348162
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Also, The license should be "BSD" and not "BSDL" to comply with Fedora standard
for shorts licenses names

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(germano.massullo@
                   |                            |gmail.com)

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Germano Massullo  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(germano.massullo@ |
                   |gmail.com)                  |

--- Comment #3 from Germano Massullo  ---
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-ne...
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-ne...

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #4 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
The LICENSE file path is wrong in the %file section and the package does not
even compile.
Please DO TRY to compile your packages before submitting them for review (and
also every time you actually change something in them).

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #5 from Germano Massullo  ---
--- rubygem-net-dns.spec        2016-07-18 17:47:52.000000000 +0200
+++ rubygem-net-dns-2.spec      2016-08-10 15:35:59.125471711 +0200
@@ -28,10 +28,10 @@

%prep
 gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
-cp %{SOURCE1} .

%setup -q -D -T -n  %{gem_name}-%{version}
 gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec
+cp %{SOURCE1} .

%build
 # Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file

=================================

Now it works and it does compile

https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-ne...
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-ne...

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo  ---
modified
cp %{SOURCE1} .
to
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
to preserve timestamps. Thanks to Igor Gnatenko for the hint.

https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-ne...
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-ne...

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Ok, nice work. APPROVED!

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Germano Massullo  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Whiteboard|                            |to do: initialize git repo;
                   |                            |make first bodhi release

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-net-dns

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Germano Massullo  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Whiteboard|to do: initialize git repo; |
                   |make first bodhi release    |

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ON_QA

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-833d9e7e85

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-da2233a0aa

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bc46bcc322

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2016-09-26 20:34:13

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.