Taking this review, I can sponsor

Looks fine, APPROVED. I'll sponsor after I get through the next packages in the review. The errors are mostly false positives

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
  => per the guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_ruby_compatibility, this does not apply to rubygem packages
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE_txt.html is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
  => there's already a license file marked as %license, this is just an extra copy in HTML format.


===== 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", "Expat License". 7 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1933459-rubygem-tty-
     color/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems/doc,
     /usr/share/gems
     false positives, these are owned by rubygems pulled in via ruby)rubygems)
[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 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

Ruby:
[x]: 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.
     Note: Package contains font files
     false positive
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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.

Ruby:
[!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.

===== 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-tty-color-0.6.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-tty-color-doc-0.6.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-tty-color-0.6.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
rubygem-tty-color.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rubygem-tty-color.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/tty-color-0.6.0.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6f9c37ca3a4e2367fb2e6d09722762647d6f455c111f05b59f35730eeb24332a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6f9c37ca3a4e2367fb2e6d09722762647d6f455c111f05b59f35730eeb24332a


Requires
--------
rubygem-tty-color (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)

rubygem-tty-color-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-tty-color



Provides
--------
rubygem-tty-color:
    rubygem(tty-color)
    rubygem-tty-color

rubygem-tty-color-doc:
    rubygem-tty-color-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1933459
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Ruby, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, PHP, Java, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-tty-color

@michel - dropped the unnecessary Requires. The LICENSE thing was a false-alarm. dist-git is populated and a package has been built and should be making its way into rawhide.

I'll wait until the whole slew of packages is in rawhide and make sure they all work nicely together before submitting any of them to F34.

Anything else I need to do before this can be closed?

FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f

FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a

FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.