Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/evgeni/vagrant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04892681-vagrant-scp/vagrant-scp.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/evgeni/vagrant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04892681-vagrant-scp/vagrant-scp-0.5.9-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Copy files to a Vagrant VM via SCP. Fedora Account System Username: evgeni
pvalena, you might be interested in this ;)
This looks good to me. I do wonder about the gemspec file in vagrant-scp-doc. Given there's already a gemspec in vagrant-scp I'd say it's redundant. According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_reviewer I should set the fedora-review flag to + but I don't see it. Last time that was because it was assigned to the wrong component, but I don't know what else it should be. 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ekohl/dev/rpm/vagrant-scp/2132956-vagrant-scp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 vagrant-scp.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/vagrant-scp-0.5.9.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e3adda6c6a059f10e9edfa90a8f08892493010f176a18360a5d92d92847cf329 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e3adda6c6a059f10e9edfa90a8f08892493010f176a18360a5d92d92847cf329 Requires -------- vagrant-scp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vagrant vagrant-scp-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vagrant-scp Provides -------- vagrant-scp: vagrant(vagrant-scp) vagrant-scp vagrant-scp-doc: vagrant-scp-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2132956 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, fonts, Java, Python, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden from comment #2) > This looks good to me. I do wonder about the gemspec file in > vagrant-scp-doc. Given there's already a gemspec in vagrant-scp I'd say it's > redundant. Technically true, but other vagrant-* packages also have this duplication.
(In reply to Evgeni Golov from comment #3) > (In reply to Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden from comment #2) > > This looks good to me. I do wonder about the gemspec file in > > vagrant-scp-doc. Given there's already a gemspec in vagrant-scp I'd say it's > > redundant. > > Technically true, but other vagrant-* packages also have this duplication. If upstream includes the .gemspec in package, we tend to keep it (or address it upstream, but ...). It has different content to `%{vagrant_plugin_spec}` anyway.
% cat /usr/share/vagrant/gems/specifications/vagrant-scp-0.5.9.gemspec # -*- encoding: utf-8 -*- # stub: vagrant-scp 0.5.9 ruby lib Gem::Specification.new do |s| s.name = "vagrant-scp".freeze s.version = "0.5.9" s.required_rubygems_version = Gem::Requirement.new(">= 0".freeze) if s.respond_to? :required_rubygems_version= s.require_paths = ["lib".freeze] s.authors = ["Luca Invernizzi".freeze] s.date = "2021-11-08" s.description = "Copy files to a Vagrant VM via SCP.".freeze s.email = ["invernizzi.l".freeze] s.homepage = "https://github.com/invernizzi/vagrant-scp".freeze s.licenses = ["MIT".freeze] s.rubygems_version = "3.3.22".freeze s.summary = "Copy files to a Vagrant VM via SCP.".freeze s.installed_by_version = "3.3.22" if s.respond_to? :installed_by_version if s.respond_to? :specification_version then s.specification_version = 4 end if s.respond_to? :add_runtime_dependency then s.add_development_dependency(%q<bundler>.freeze, [">= 2.2.10"]) s.add_development_dependency(%q<rake>.freeze, [">= 12.3.3"]) s.add_runtime_dependency(%q<log4r>.freeze, ["~> 1.1"]) s.add_runtime_dependency(%q<net-scp>.freeze, [">= 1.1"]) else s.add_dependency(%q<bundler>.freeze, [">= 2.2.10"]) s.add_dependency(%q<rake>.freeze, [">= 12.3.3"]) s.add_dependency(%q<log4r>.freeze, ["~> 1.1"]) s.add_dependency(%q<net-scp>.freeze, [">= 1.1"]) end end % cat /usr/share/vagrant/gems/gems/vagrant-scp-0.5.9/vagrant-scp.gemspec # coding: utf-8 lib = File.expand_path('../lib', __FILE__) $LOAD_PATH.unshift(lib) unless $LOAD_PATH.include?(lib) require 'vagrant/scp/version' Gem::Specification.new do |spec| spec.name = "vagrant-scp" spec.version = Vagrant::Scp::VERSION spec.authors = ["Luca Invernizzi"] spec.email = ["invernizzi.l"] spec.description = 'Copy files to a Vagrant VM via SCP.' spec.summary = 'Copy files to a Vagrant VM via SCP.' spec.homepage = "https://github.com/invernizzi/vagrant-scp" spec.license = "MIT" spec.files = `git ls-files`.split($/) spec.executables = spec.files.grep(%r{^bin/}) { |f| File.basename(f) } spec.test_files = spec.files.grep(%r{^(test|spec|features)/}) spec.require_paths = ["lib"] spec.add_development_dependency "bundler", ">= 2.2.10" spec.add_development_dependency "rake", ">= 12.3.3" spec.add_runtime_dependency 'log4r', "~> 1.1" spec.add_runtime_dependency 'net-scp', ">= 1.1" end They are different, indeed (even tho the result should be identical?)
(In reply to Evgeni Golov from comment #5) > (even tho the result should be identical?) Although in theory, they could be the same, they are not the same in practice. The latter is the source .gemspec used to generate the .gem package. The former is autogenerated .gemspec from the gem metadata.
(In reply to Evgeni Golov from comment #5) > spec.add_runtime_dependency 'log4r', "~> 1.1" > spec.add_runtime_dependency 'net-scp', ">= 1.1" Huh, I did expect those to be automatically added to Requires, but they weren't. Probably because it's not *really* a rubygem we're packaging here? I'll add them on the next upload.
(In reply to Evgeni Golov from comment #7) > (In reply to Evgeni Golov from comment #5) > > > spec.add_runtime_dependency 'log4r', "~> 1.1" > > spec.add_runtime_dependency 'net-scp', ">= 1.1" > > Huh, I did expect those to be automatically added to Requires, but they > weren't. > Probably because it's not *really* a rubygem we're packaging here? Well, yes, the dependency generators are not included in Vagrant. They could probably be. Nevertheless, the vagrant gem2rpm template should generate those: https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/blob/master/templates/fedora-27-rawhide-vagrant-plugin.spec.erb
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #8) > Nevertheless, the vagrant gem2rpm template should generate those: > > https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/blob/master/templates/fedora-27- > rawhide-vagrant-plugin.spec.erb I don't see that template having Requires for the gem dependencies?
(In reply to Evgeni Golov from comment #9) > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #8) > > > Nevertheless, the vagrant gem2rpm template should generate those: > > > > https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/blob/master/templates/fedora-27- > > rawhide-vagrant-plugin.spec.erb > > I don't see that template having Requires for the gem dependencies? Ups. Not sure what I have seen there. Sorry for confusion.
updated spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/evgeni/vagrant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04919493-vagrant-scp/vagrant-scp.spec updated srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/evgeni/vagrant/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04919493-vagrant-scp/vagrant-scp-0.5.9-1.fc38.src.rpm diff, for lazy people like myself: --- vagrant-scp.spec 2022-10-07 12:04:21.000000000 +0200 +++ vagrant-scp.spec 2022-10-14 14:22:44.000000000 +0200 @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ URL: https://github.com/invernizzi/vagrant-scp Source0: https://rubygems.org/gems/%{vagrant_plugin_name}-%{version}.gem Requires: vagrant +Requires: (rubygem(log4r) >= 1.1 with rubygem(log4r) < 2) +Requires: rubygem(net-scp) >= 1.1 BuildRequires: vagrant BuildRequires: ruby(release) BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
@vondruch with that patch it looks like the dependencies should be covered. Is there anything these that needs to be addressed before it can be added?