[Bug 742189] Review Request: rubygem-webmock - Library for stubbing HTTP requests in Ruby

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189

--- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> 2011-10-03 07:20:56 EDT ---
New Spec / SPRM:


Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc15.src.rpm


> rubygem-webmock.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/webmock-1.7.6/Rakefile /usr/bin/env
> 
> From rpmlint source ... '''An included file marked as %doc creates a possible
> additional dependency in the package.  Usually, this is not wanted and may be
> caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the
> package's documentation.'''

Fixed, unmarked Rakefile as doc. Also changed /usr/bin/env rake to
/usr/bin/rake

> 
> rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestSignature/eql%3f-i.yaml
> %3f
> <snip>
> 
> From rpmlint source ... '''This package contains a file whose path contains
> something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a
> misspelling. Please check your specfile.'''
> 

These can be ignored, they occur in any rubygem that ships ri documentation


> > [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
> >          actual license
> 
> The upstream LICENSE file seems to indicate MIT, does this need to be updated?
>

Fixed


> Note, there are too many files listed as %doc.  For example, the Rakefile
> probably shouldn't be a %doc.  Maybe the same with other source code?
> 
> %exclude %{geminstdir}/Rakefile
>

Unmarked Rakefile as doc, the others are appropriately marked as doc (include
tests and such)



> > [ FAIL ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should 
> >          be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
> >          must include a %defattr(...) line.

This is no longer needed

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions


> > [ FAIL ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
> >          %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> 
> Fixed, see http://fpaste.org/GNSM/
>

This is no longer needed / should not be present

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag



> > [ WARN ] - The Ruby library files in a pure Ruby package must be placed into Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] . The specfile must get that path using %{!?ruby_sitelib: %global ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e 'puts Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] ')}
> 
> The specfile is using a different method for locating /usr/lib/ruby/*.  Should
> it be using %{ruby_sitelib} instead?  Or does this not apply since this is
> providing a rubygem?
> 

Yes according to the Fedora gem packaging guidelines, we define gemdir and
geminstdir correctly


http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems


> > [ WARN ] - The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be empty.
> 
> %build is empty, %prep is not ... I've adjusted per the ruby guidelines
> slightly.  However this is a *should* requirement, not a *must*.  
> 

I would prefer to leave it as it is. The reason being if we ever have to patch
the gem, the gem install needs to occur in the %prep section before we can run
the %patch commands there as well.


> > [ FAIL ] - The install should be performed with the command 'gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}'
> 
> This command is currently used in the %prep.  I've adjusted slighty to
> accommodate the *should* requirement.  Feel free to use if desired.
> 
> http://fpaste.org/GNSM/
>

Again would prefer to leave as is unless this is a major blocker.

Thank you greatly for the review!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.