[Bug 823334] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-config - class-based config mixin for ruby scripts

Sun Dec 30 23:35:54 UTC 2012

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823334

Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> ---
So except the patch not documented, the package is good and approved. Can you
make sure this is documented before importing ?

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

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

Issues:
=======
- The patch should be documented in the spec, if ti come from upstream, etc

===== 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/823334-rubygem-mixlib-
     config/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
     independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[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 contains Requires: ruby(abi).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

Ruby:
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %exclude
     %{gem_cache}, %doc %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_libdir}
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.

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

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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-mixlib-config-1.1.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-mixlib-config-doc-1.1.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
rubygem-mixlib-config-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/gems/mixlib-config-1.1.2/features/step_definitions/mixlib_config_steps.rb
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rubygem-mixlib-config-doc rubygem-mixlib-config
rubygem-mixlib-config-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/gems/mixlib-config-1.1.2/features/step_definitions/mixlib_config_steps.rb
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
rubygem-mixlib-config-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-mixlib-config

rubygem-mixlib-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(abi)
    ruby(rubygems)

Provides
--------
rubygem-mixlib-config-doc:
    rubygem-mixlib-config-doc

rubygem-mixlib-config:
    rubygem(mixlib-config)
    rubygem-mixlib-config

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/mixlib-config-1.1.2.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
2be6228827c4f11c45901c4c83c0efaef95f7c7866c7fcb9a5f23fcca1e74ca2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2be6228827c4f11c45901c4c83c0efaef95f7c7866c7fcb9a5f23fcca1e74ca2

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -m fedora-18-x86_64 -b 823334

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=C9WYHQkSQU&a=cc_unsubscribe