https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024 Bug 1116024 depends on bug 1116018, which changed state.

Bug 1116018 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024

Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tdawson@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdawson@redhat.com

--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

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

Issues: ======= - Not the latest version (0.0.18)

- License file LICENSE.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Package installs properly. -- This is because this requires rubygem-ruby-prov (#1116021) -- There isn't a rule that says you can't work on seveal packages at once. Let's see if we can get them both into fedora at the same time. -- So, I would still pass this, as long at it looks like the dependency is moving along.

- There is no %check section -- This would require packages that are not yet in fedora --- rubygem-turn (not really needed. Dependency can be removed with sed -i '/require.*turn/ s/^/#/' test/test_helper.rb --- rubygem-elasticsearch-extentions (#1116030) -- Since this is a *should* I would pass this without the %check section, but I would highly encourage you to add the %check when the dependencies are in fedora.

===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [-]: 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. [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. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Ruby: [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/quake/tmp/1116024-rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions/results/rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc-0.0.15-2.fc24.noarch.rpm rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15-2.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Requires -------- rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(ansi) rubygem(ruby-prof)

rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions

Provides -------- rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions: rubygem(elasticsearch-extensions) rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions

rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions-doc

Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/elasticsearch-extensions-0.0.15.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1be9ba36ddf2ccced4f970495d0cd43fd45f8498dcc552863a43540da3c9e03f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1be9ba36ddf2ccced4f970495d0cd43fd45f8498dcc552863a43540da3c9e03f

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1116024 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024

--- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Well that's weird. I wonder why doing a scratch build of a different package would show up here.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024

Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW CC|tdawson@redhat.com | Assignee|tdawson@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024

Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2017-05-31 05:19:56

--- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- So old, can't remember by why I wanted it. Apologies for the lack of response.