[Bug 742189] New: Review Request: rubygem-webmock - Library for stubbing HTTP requests in Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-webmock - Library for stubbing HTTP requests in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-webmock - Library for stubbing HTTP requests in Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmorsi@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock.spec SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3388044
Description: WebMock allows stubbing HTTP requests and setting expectations on HTTP requests.
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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jlaska@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jlaska@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from James Laska jlaska@redhat.com 2011-09-30 15:03:46 EDT --- Taking review ownership. This is my first rubygem package review. I've done my best to apply the ruby packaging guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby). However, I'm not the authority on rubygem's, so we can certainly work through any issues raised.
[ WARN ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
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.'''
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 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HeadersPattern/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/put_data_with_webmock%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/NetHttpAdapter/const_defined%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/allow_net_connect%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/delete_with_webmock%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/WebMockMatcher/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestPatternMatcher/does_not_match%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/URIStringPattern/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/post_body_with_webmock%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/CallbackRegistry/any_callbacks%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/head%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/net_connect_allowed%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/StubRegistry/reset%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/delete%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/head_with_webmock%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/TyphoeusAdapter/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/CurbAdapter/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/StubRegistry/registered_request%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestExecutionVerifier/does_not_match%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/MethodPattern/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/URIRegexpPattern/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/HTTPClientAdapter/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/post_body%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestRegistry/reset%21-i.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/exception%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestStub/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestSignature/url_encoded%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/body%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/NetHttpAdapter/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestStub/has_responses%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/%3d%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/TyphoeusAdapter/disabled%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/TyphoeusAdapter/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/BodyPattern/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/NetHttpAdapter/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestPattern/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestPatternMatcher/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/CurbAdapter/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/headers%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/EmHttpRequestAdapter/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/registered_request%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestSignature/headers%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/PatronAdapter/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/WebMockMatcher/does_not_match%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/disable_net_connect%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Util/HashKeysStringifier/stringify_keys%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/EmHttpRequestAdapter/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/ResponsesSequence/end%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/options%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/HTTPClientAdapter/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/is_uri_localhost%3f-c.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/HttpLibAdapters/PatronAdapter/disable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestExecutionVerifier/matches%3f-i.yaml %3f rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/reset%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/enable%21-c.yaml %21 rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/Response/status%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/Curl/WebMockCurlEasy/put_data%3d-i.yaml %3d 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 61 warnings.
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.'''
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ 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?
https://github.com/bblimke/webmock/blob/master/LICENSE https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/MIT_License#License_terms
[ WARN ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc
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
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
5ff10679f8e2865471fc9f9ae80dd2c5 webmock-1.7.6.gem 5ff10679f8e2865471fc9f9ae80dd2c5 webmock-rpm-1.7.6.gem
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3394322
[ NA ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ NA ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [ NA ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ 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. [ NA ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
No longer applies for F13 or newer
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ OK ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [ OK ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ OK ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ OK ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [ NA ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ NA ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ NA ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ NA ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ NA ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ FAIL ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Fixed, see http://fpaste.org/GNSM/
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
== Ruby requirements ==
[ OK ] - Each Ruby package must indicate the Ruby ABI version it depends on with a line like [ OK ] - Pure Ruby packages must be built as noarch packages. [ 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?
[ NA ] - For packages with binary content, e.g., database drivers or any other Ruby bindings to C libraries, the package must be architecture specific. [ OK ] - Packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname} where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. [ OK ] - The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive; the version of the package must be the Gem's version
Source0: http://rubygems.org/gems/%%7Bgemname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.gem
[ OK ] - The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems [ OK ] - The package must provide rubygem(%{gemname}) where gemname is the name from the Gem's specification. For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem [ 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*.
[ OK ] - The Gem must be installed into %{gemdir} defined as %global gemdir %(ruby -rubygems -e 'puts Gem::dir' 2>/dev/null) [ 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.
[ OK ] - The package must own the following files and directories:
%{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/ %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec
[ NA ] - Architecture-specific content must not be installed into %{gemdir} [ OK ] - If the Gem only contains pure Ruby code, it must be marked as BuildArch: noarch. If the Gem contains binary content (e.g., for a database driver), it must be marked as architecture specific, and all architecture specific content must be moved from the %{gemdir} to the [#ruby_sitearch %{ruby_sitearch} directory] during %install
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@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.
Again would prefer to leave as is unless this is a major blocker.
Thank you greatly for the review!
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.
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
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vondruch@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com 2011-10-03 11:27:17 EDT --- I have few suggestions:
* Please check duplicated "Requires: rubygem(addressable)" * Please execute test suite if available upstream. * I would suggest to move following files into -doc subpackage:
%{geminstdir}/Gemfile %{geminstdir}/Rakefile %doc %{geminstdir}/minitest %doc %{geminstdir}/test %doc %{geminstdir}/spec %doc %{geminstdir}/%{gemname}.gemspec %doc %{geminstdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{geminstdir}/Guardfile
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
Mo Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi mmorsi@redhat.com 2011-10-03 14:42:52 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Will look into implementing the additional suggestions before pushing.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-webmock Short Description: Library for stubbing HTTP requests in Ruby Owners: mmorsi Branches: f16 InitialCC:
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 #6 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-10-03 14:46:22 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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 #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-03 15:18:14 EDT --- rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16
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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |743402
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
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-04 16:51:04 EDT --- Package rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
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
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc1 | |6 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-10-24 23:23:00
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-24 23:23:00 EDT --- rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdawson@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: rubygem-webmock New Branches: epel7 Owners: tdawson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla