https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Bug ID: 1268745 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-parser - A Ruby parser written in pure Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ilya.gradina@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-parser... SRPM URL: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-parser... Description: A Ruby parser written in pure Ruby. Fedora Account System Username: ilgrad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1268744
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744 [Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1268753
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268753 [Bug 1268753] Review Request: rubygem-astrolabe - An object-oriented AST extension for Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1268758
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268758 [Bug 1268758] Review Request: rubygem-rubocop - Automatic Ruby code style checking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina ilya.gradina@gmail.com --- New Spec: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-parser... New SRPM: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-parser...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjoost@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjoost@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
--- Comment #2 from Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com --- 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 104 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rjoost/tmp/1268745-rubygem-parser/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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 [-]: 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]: 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]: 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
Ruby: [-]: 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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- parser-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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.
Ruby: [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: gems should not require rubygems package [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-parser-2.3.1.2-1.fc27.noarch.rpm rubygem-parser-doc-2.3.1.2-1.fc27.noarch.rpm rubygem-parser-2.3.1.2-1.fc27.src.rpm rubygem-parser.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/bin/ruby-parse /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-parser.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/bin/ruby-rewrite /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-parser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruby-rewrite rubygem-parser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruby-parse rubygem-parser-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/doc/css/.gitkeep rubygem-parser-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/doc/css/.gitkeep 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rubygem-parser-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/doc/css/.gitkeep rubygem-parser-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/doc/css/.gitkeep rubygem-parser.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/bin/ruby-parse /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-parser.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/gems/gems/parser-2.3.1.2/bin/ruby-rewrite /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-parser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruby-parse rubygem-parser.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruby-rewrite 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- rubygem-parser-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-parser
rubygem-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(rubygems) rubygem(ast)
Provides -------- rubygem-parser-doc: rubygem-parser-doc
rubygem-parser: rubygem(parser) rubygem-parser
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/parser-2.3.1.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66c6681c1703c435b93c8173443f5aaaf8c000c1052f7897b19d23f107d2ac3b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66c6681c1703c435b93c8173443f5aaaf8c000c1052f7897b19d23f107d2ac3b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268745 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L /tmp/rubygemrepo/ -v Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Built with local dependencies: /tmp/rubygemrepo/rubygem-ast-2.3.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm /tmp/rubygemrepo/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm /tmp/rubygemrepo/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
--- Comment #3 from Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com --- There is quite some stuff going in to the gem dir which I wonder is perhaps out of your control. I also can't see any guidelines in the wiki. The only missing piece from approving the package is perhaps that it hasn't packaged the latest version. Do you want to maybe update the bug with the latest version and I go over it again?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ilya.gradina@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(ilya.gradina@gmai | |l.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ilya.gradina@gmai | |l.com) |
--- Comment #4 from Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com --- Package review stalled. No response.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed| |2017-12-03 17:33:19
--- Comment #5 from Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com --- Closing according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
--- Comment #6 from Roman Joost rjoost@redhat.com --- Closing according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla