Unexpected files included in rubygem doc packages

[Breno Brand Fernandes]

Hi all,

I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1].

The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of
requiring them.
And, I was also not shipping their license.

After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that some
other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to the
conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora Rawhide
right now has those files.

We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not
include those files [2].

A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email.
There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others.

In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those files
could be excluded [3].

Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the files
were downloaded?
I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have
licensing issues?

What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be
pointed to?

Thanks.

- B

1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276
2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem
3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude  %{gem_docdir}/rdoc"

[Troy Dawson]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1].
>
> The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of requiring them.
> And, I was also not shipping their license.
>
> After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that some other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to the conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora Rawhide right now has those files.
>
> We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not include those files [2].
>
> A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email.
> There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others.
>
> In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those files could be excluded [3].
>
> Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the files were downloaded?
> I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have licensing issues?
>
> What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be pointed to?
>
> Thanks.
> B
>
> 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276
> 2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem
> 3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude  %{gem_docdir}/rdoc"

Just so ya'll know, it was Troy he was working with, not Trevor.
I'm going to be a bit more specific.
Every rubygem doc rpm (but one) in rawhide has the following
directories, with the exact same fonts and images in them.

/usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/{css,font,images,js}/

The fonts in those directories are Lato and SourceCodePro.
I searched everywhere I could think of to see what our policy was
about those, but couldn't find anything.
The only package we found, that didn't have those, was rubygem-nifti,
as stated above.

What are people's thoughts.  Should we add that %exclude to our
policy?  Or is this such a minor thing we shouldn't worry about it.
My final recommendation to Breno was to add the exclude, but we were
also a bit concerned if this was going to break documentation.

Troy

[Breno Brand Fernandes]

Oh, I'm sorry Troy.
I thought of Troy and wrote Trevor. My bad. I am getting old...

Thanks for clarifying the issue.

- B

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 18:20, Troy Dawson  wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes
>  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1].
> >
> > The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of
>
> requiring them.
> > And, I was also not shipping their license.
> >
> > After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that
>
> some other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to
> the conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora
> Rawhide right now has those files.
> > We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not
>
> include those files [2].
> > A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email.
> > There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others.
> >
> > In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those files
>
> could be excluded [3].
> > Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the
>
> files were downloaded?
> > I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have
>
> licensing issues?
> > What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be
>
> pointed to?
> > Thanks.
> > B
> >
> > 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276
> > 2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem
> > 3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude  %{gem_docdir}/rdoc"
>
> Just so ya'll know, it was Troy he was working with, not Trevor.
> I'm going to be a bit more specific.
> Every rubygem doc rpm (but one) in rawhide has the following
> directories, with the exact same fonts and images in them.
>
> /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/{css,font,images,js}/
>
> The fonts in those directories are Lato and SourceCodePro.
> I searched everywhere I could think of to see what our policy was
> about those, but couldn't find anything.
> The only package we found, that didn't have those, was rubygem-nifti,
> as stated above.
>
> What are people's thoughts.  Should we add that %exclude to our
> policy?  Or is this such a minor thing we shouldn't worry about it.
> My final recommendation to Breno was to add the exclude, but we were
> also a bit concerned if this was going to break documentation.
>
> Troy
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail].o...

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 25. 02. 20 v 0:18 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes
>  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1].
> >
> > The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of requiring them.
> > And, I was also not shipping their license.
> >
> > After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that some other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to the conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora Rawhide right now has those files.
> >
> > We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not include those files [2].
> >
> > A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email.
> > There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others.
> >
> > In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those files could be excluded [3].
> >
> > Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the files were downloaded?
> > I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have licensing issues?
> >
> > What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be pointed to?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > B
> >
> > 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276
> > 2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem
> > 3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude  %{gem_docdir}/rdoc"
>
> Just so ya'll know, it was Troy he was working with, not Trevor.
> I'm going to be a bit more specific.
> Every rubygem doc rpm (but one) in rawhide has the following
> directories, with the exact same fonts and images in them.
>
> /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/{css,font,images,js}/
>
> The fonts in those directories are Lato and SourceCodePro.
> I searched everywhere I could think of to see what our policy was
> about those, but couldn't find anything.
> The only package we found, that didn't have those, was rubygem-nifti,
> as stated above.
>
> What are people's thoughts.  Should we add that %exclude to our
> policy?  Or is this such a minor thing we shouldn't worry about it.
> My final recommendation to Breno was to add the exclude, but we were
> also a bit concerned if this was going to break documentation.

This is old Ruby ticket:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715

Vít
> Troy
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail].o...

[Breno Brand Fernandes]

Hi Vít,

Thanks for your feedback, here and in the ticket.

- B

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 03:58, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> Dne 25. 02. 20 v 0:18 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:55 PM Breno Brand Fernandes
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I had an issue today with a package I submitted to code review [1].
> > >
> > > The reviewer pointed out that I was shipping font files instead of
>
> requiring them.
> > > And, I was also not shipping their license.
> > >
> > > After that, Trevor and I started to investigate and we realized that
>
> some other packages had the same issue. We wrote a few scripts and came to
> the conclusion that almost every rubygem doc package pushed to Fedora
> Rawhide right now has those files.
> > > We also investigated the gems, and it seems that by default they do not
>
> include those files [2].
> > > A list of the mentioned files is attached to this email.
> > > There are fonts, CSS, Javascripts, and others.
> > >
> > > In one of the rubygem packages (rubygem-nifti) we found that those
>
> files could be excluded [3].
> > > Is this expected? Should we just use the exclude [3] even though the
>
> files were downloaded?
> > > I mean, removing the files at a build stage is enough if they have
>
> licensing issues?
> > > What is the right direction the reviewer or the maintainer should be
>
> pointed to?
> > > Thanks.
> > > B
> > >
> > > 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803276
> > > 2 - e.g. https://rubygems.org/gems/cane-3.0.0.gem
> > > 3 - %files doc section, they have "%exclude  %{gem_docdir}/rdoc"
> >
> > Just so ya'll know, it was Troy he was working with, not Trevor.
> > I'm going to be a bit more specific.
> > Every rubygem doc rpm (but one) in rawhide has the following
> > directories, with the exact same fonts and images in them.
> >
> > /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/{css,font,images,js}/
> >
> > The fonts in those directories are Lato and SourceCodePro.
> > I searched everywhere I could think of to see what our policy was
> > about those, but couldn't find anything.
> > The only package we found, that didn't have those, was rubygem-nifti,
> > as stated above.
> >
> > What are people's thoughts.  Should we add that %exclude to our
> > policy?  Or is this such a minor thing we shouldn't worry about it.
> > My final recommendation to Breno was to add the exclude, but we were
> > also a bit concerned if this was going to break documentation.
>
> This is old Ruby ticket:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715
>
> Vít
> > Troy
> > _______________________________________________
> > ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail].o...
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail].o...