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
James Laska jlaska@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from James Laska jlaska@redhat.com 2011-10-03 10:16:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
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
$ rpmlint rubygem-webmock.spec rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc15.src.rpm rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc15.noarch.rpm rubygem-webmock-doc-1.7.6-2.fc15.noarch.rpm | grep -v "unexpanded-macro" 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 60 warnings.
rpmlint looks good, excluding the 'unexpanded-macro' warning.
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
Fix confirmed in latest spec/packages.
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
Agreed, just a warning and can be ignored.
[ 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
Fix confirmed in latest spec/packages.
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)
Gotcha, thanks for explaining.
[ 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
Thanks, I need to update my checklist.
[ 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
Gotcha
[ 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.
No objections, this shows up as a "should" requirement, and is entirely up to the maintainer in my opinion.
[ 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.
Again would prefer to leave as is unless this is a major blocker.
Understood. Makes sense given your comments about applying patches.
Thank you greatly for the review!
Anytime.
From what I can tell, everything else looks good with the packages posted in
comment#2. I approve this review request.