Greetings,
I am in process of submitting a new gem to Fedora for the first time. It is rubygem-sync, needed by rubygem-tins since Ruby 2.7 as described in RHBZ#1969567 [1].
I used gem2rpm to create my specfile and srpm [2]. Then I ran fedora-review on them. To my surprise, there were two issues. It looks like any specfile created with gem2rpm would suffer from these. How should these be handled?
Problem 1: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc
Requires: ruby(rubygems) was automatically created, should that handle those directories?
Problem 2: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files
The fonts in question are in the -docs subpackage, /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/fonts. I installed -doc for a couple of rubygem- packages, they all copied the same fonts. Sure, using system fonts is just a "should" [3], but it still seems strange that those fonts are copied over and over in rubygem docs packages. What is going on here?
Otto
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1969567 [2]: http://oturpe.kapsi.fi/fedora/rpms/rubygem-sync/ [3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_avoid_bundling_o...
Dne 26. 06. 21 v 9:32 Otto Urpelainen napsal(a):
Greetings,
I am in process of submitting a new gem to Fedora for the first time. It is rubygem-sync, needed by rubygem-tins since Ruby 2.7 as described in RHBZ#1969567 [1].
I used gem2rpm to create my specfile and srpm [2]. Then I ran fedora-review on them. To my surprise, there were two issues. It looks like any specfile created with gem2rpm would suffer from these. How should these be handled?
Problem 1: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc
Requires: ruby(rubygems) was automatically created, should that handle those directories?
I'd say this is false positive, because the package depends on ruby(rubygems), which owns those directories. IOW this should be fixed on rpmlint side.
Problem 2: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files
The fonts in question are in the -docs subpackage, /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/fonts. I installed -doc for a couple of rubygem- packages, they all copied the same fonts. Sure, using system fonts is just a "should" [3], but it still seems strange that those fonts are copied over and over in rubygem docs packages. What is going on here?
This is longstanding issue without proper solution:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224715
Vít
Vít Ondruch kirjoitti 29.6.2021 klo 11.35:
Dne 26. 06. 21 v 9:32 Otto Urpelainen napsal(a):
Greetings,
Problem 1: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc
Requires: ruby(rubygems) was automatically created, should that handle those directories?
I'd say this is false positive, because the package depends on ruby(rubygems), which owns those directories. IOW this should be fixed on rpmlint side.
I agree. I filed an issue for fedora-review:
https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/418
Problem 2: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files
The fonts in question are in the -docs subpackage, /usr/share/gems/doc/<package>/rdoc/fonts. I installed -doc for a couple of rubygem- packages, they all copied the same fonts. Sure, using system fonts is just a "should" [3], but it still seems strange that those fonts are copied over and over in rubygem docs packages. What is going on here?
This is longstanding issue without proper solution:
I see, thank you for the link. It is like it is, it seems. I will ignore the situation.
After I realized that I should also install the fedora-review-plugin-ruby package, I ran into more problems. They were luckily so simple that I was able to submit a pull request for fedora-review:
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Otto Urpelainen -
Vít Ondruch