Bug 1891336

Updated for correcting items in doc and version number
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01725962-rubygem-xdg/rubygem-xdg.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01725962-rubygem-xdg/rubygem-xdg-2.2.5-1.fc34.src.rpm

There was a previous review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654426 but I was unable to find or retrieve that spec file.

 - No test suite here?

%check
pushd .%{gem_instdir}
# Run the test suite.
popd

 - Release should start at 1

Release: 0%{?dist}

 - Should use the BSD shorthand:

License: BSD



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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 24
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-xdg/review-rubygem-
     xdg/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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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
-------
Checking: rubygem-xdg-2.2.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-xdg-doc-2.2.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-xdg-2.2.5-1.fc34.src.rpm
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
rubygem-xdg.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
>  - No test suite here?
> 
> %check
> pushd .%{gem_instdir}
> # Run the test suite.
> popd
From what I could find, there was not a test suite back in the 2.2.5 version, or rather I could not figure out how to run it. Removed the dead check section.

>  - Release should start at 1
> 
> Release: 0%{?dist}
Done

>  - Should use the BSD shorthand:
> 
> License: BSD
Done

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01756741-rubygem-xdg/rubygem-xdg.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01756741-rubygem-xdg/rubygem-xdg-2.2.5-1.fc34.src.rpm

Also checked spec into pagure.io at https://pagure.io/rubygem-xdg/blob/master/f/rubygem-xdg.spec

Package approved.

Fantastic, thank you. It looks like I will need to get sponsored next.

Package never imported, resetting ticket status.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

I never got to the point of actually getting the package depending on this squared away, thank you for the time.