[Bug 1052283] Review Request: rubygem-more_core_extensions - Set of core extensions beyond those provided by ActiveSupport
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Dec 6 20:51:40 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052283
Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> ---
Hi Mo,
Please accept my apologies at taking so long to get back on this. Here's my
review. Package is APPROVED.
The following comments are not blockers, but suggestions:
- You can strip out the boilerplate gem2rpm comment about
more_core_extensions-1.2.0.gem at the top of the file, since this is going to
go stale.
- rpmlint doesn't like the length of the Summary field. For some reason I have
a vague memory that the Summary field is not supposed to contain the name of
the package... but I can't find the guideline for that at the moment. At any
rate, you could shorten the Summary to simply "Set of core extensions beyond
those provided by ActiveSupport". That should fix the "summary-to-long" rpmlint
error. (This could be fixed in the gemspec upstream as well :)
- No need to BuildRequires: ruby when you've already got BuildRequires:
ruby(release). BR: ruby is only for gems that can only work on MRI.
- The coveralls and rspec BRs are commented out, and I'm not sure why they are
commented. It seems like you should be able to run the test suite, right? The
%check section is blank (it's just the default boilerplate from gem2rpm).
- With the changes in the Fedora 21 Ruby Packaging guidelines, you don't have
to provide explicit Requires or Provides any more for rubygem packages. For
backwards compatibility with Fedora 20 and RHEL 7, you can wrap your Requires
and Provides like so:
%if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7}
Requires: ruby(release)
Requires: ruby(rubygems)
Requires: rubygem(activesupport) > 3.2
%endif
%if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20} || 0%{?el7}
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
%endif
And then just strip out each dist conditional as Fedora 19 goes EOL, then
Fedora 20, etc.
- The %license macro has not yet been adopted as a requirement by the Packaging
Committee, but you can start to use it now, with a backwards-compatible shim,
like so:
%files
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%dir %{gem_instdir}
%license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE.txt
- In the %changelog section, your name is listed as "mmorsi", and this should
be "Mo Morsi". (You might want to check the output of the rpmdev-packager
utility on your box to be sure this is doing the Right Thing.)
- The %{gem_instdir}/spec directory should not be marked as "%doc" since the
code there is not documentation.
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[?]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 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. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of 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).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see above).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Ruby:
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-more_core_extensions-1.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
rubygem-more_core_extensions-doc-1.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
rubygem-more_core_extensions-1.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
rubygem-more_core_extensions.noarch: E: summary-too-long C MoreCoreExtensions
are a set of core extensions beyond those provided by ActiveSupport
rubygem-more_core_extensions.noarch: E: useless-provides
rubygem(more_core_extensions)
rubygem-more_core_extensions.src: E: summary-too-long C MoreCoreExtensions are
a set of core extensions beyond those provided by ActiveSupport
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rubygem-more_core_extensions rubygem-more_core_extensions-doc
rubygem-more_core_extensions.noarch: E: summary-too-long C MoreCoreExtensions
are a set of core extensions beyond those provided by ActiveSupport
rubygem-more_core_extensions.noarch: E: useless-provides
rubygem(more_core_extensions)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/ktdreyer/fedora-scm/rubygem-more_core_extensions/1052283-rubygem-more_core_extensions/srpm/rubygem-more_core_extensions.spec
2014-12-06 13:16:26.471084878 -0700
+++
/home/ktdreyer/fedora-scm/rubygem-more_core_extensions/1052283-rubygem-more_core_extensions/srpm-unpacked/rubygem-more_core_extensions.spec
2014-08-21 13:10:05.000000000 -0600
@@ -78,17 +78,4 @@
%changelog
-* Thu Aug 21 2014 Mo Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> - 1.2.0-1
-- Update to latest Fedora guidelines
-
-* Fri Aug 23 2013 Mo Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> - 1.1.2-1
-- Release 1.1.2
-
-* Fri Aug 23 2013 Mo Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> - 1.0.2-1
-- Bumped version
-
-* Fri Aug 23 2013 Mo Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> - 1.0.1-1
-- Bumped version
-
-* Thu Jun 20 2013 Steve Linabery <slinaber at redhat.com> - 1.0.0-1
+* Thu Aug 21 2014 mmorsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> - 1.2.0-1
- Initial package
-
Requires
--------
rubygem-more_core_extensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ruby(release)
ruby(rubygems)
rubygem(activesupport)
rubygem-more_core_extensions-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-more_core_extensions
Provides
--------
rubygem-more_core_extensions:
rubygem(more_core_extensions)
rubygem-more_core_extensions
rubygem-more_core_extensions-doc:
rubygem-more_core_extensions-doc
Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/more_core_extensions-1.2.0.gem :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
354b29d72ab85ad6603c59474d7edb05c8870b413cdad79b66f1fe940b1fabc4
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
354b29d72ab85ad6603c59474d7edb05c8870b413cdad79b66f1fe940b1fabc4
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1052283
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
More information about the package-review
mailing list