Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Bug ID: 902503 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-httpclient - HTTP Client interface for ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: tdawson@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-2.... Description: an interface to HTTP Client for the ruby language Fedora Account System Username: tdawson maxamillion
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- RPMLINT Output: rpmlint rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-2.fc18.src.rpm rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm rubygem-httpclient-doc-2.3.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- A few remark : - %%doc %{gem_instdir}/README.txt
why a %% instead of % ?
- URL: http://devcentral.f5.com/
The url seems wrong
- there is no license shipped
- Licensing is wrong : # This program is copyrighted free software by NAKAMURA, Hiroshi. You can # redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms of Ruby's license; # either the dual license version in 2003, or any later version.
that's not GPLv2 ( and I think there is some license mixing )
- this is likely wrong find %{buildroot}/%{gem_instdir} -type f -exec sed -r -e 's"^#!(.*)/usr/bin/env ruby"#!/usr/bin/ruby"' {} ;
as it print on stdout the fixed file, you may miss a -i ( see the build.log file )
- the gem ship its own CA store ( /usr/share/gems/gems/httpclient-2.3.2/lib/httpclient/cacert.p7s ). This may include outdated certificates ( as it get them from jdk, I would not bet on their security ), and i do not know how to check. And of course, it use it by default :)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-3....
- %%doc -- typo - fixed
- URL -- That's what spec originally had. fixed
- License -- Set to dual license Ruby + GPLv2 --- There was some code mixing but they got permission to License it all under the standard Ruby dual license. "Some part of it is copyrighted by Maebashi-san who made and published http-access/0.0.4. http-access/0.0.4 did not include license notice but when I asked Maebashi-san he agreed that I can redistribute it under the same terms of Ruby. Many thanks to Maebashi-san."
- Non-working find line -- Another throwback from the original spec. I'm glad it wasn't working because it was trying to change all the /usr/bin/env ruby to /usr/bin/ruby. Not something I think you should do. -- removed line
- CA -- not sure what to do about it.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |guillermo.gomez@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com --- ¿Progress? Im needing it for rubygem-rhc since it becames as dependency for latest version
# gem dependency rhc -r Gem rhc-1.3.8 activesupport (~> 3.0, development) archive-tar-minitar (>= 0) commander (>= 4.0) cucumber (>= 0, development) dnsruby (>= 0, development) fakefs (>= 0.4, development) highline (>= 1.5.1) httpclient (>= 2.2) <<<<<< HERE net-ssh (>= 2.0.11) open4 (>= 0) rake (<= 0.9.2.2, >= 0.8.7, development) rspec (~> 1.3, development) test-unit (>= 0) thor (>= 0, development) webmock (>= 1.6, development)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Well, ruby is under the following license : License : (Ruby or BSD) and Public Domain
So I do not see where does the GPL v2 come from, as http-access was first without license, then under ruby license ( ie, ruby or BSD ).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org ---
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/902503-rubygem- httpclient/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- httpclient-doc [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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: [!]: 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). [-]: 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. [x]: %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. [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 unless justified.
Ruby: [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_spec}, %{gem_libdir}, %exclude %{gem_cache} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm rubygem-httpclient-doc-2.3.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-httpclient-doc rubygem-httpclient 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- rubygem-httpclient-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-httpclient
rubygem-httpclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env ruby(abi) rubygems
Provides -------- rubygem-httpclient-doc: rubygem-httpclient-doc
rubygem-httpclient: rubygem(httpclient) rubygem-httpclient
MD5-sum check ------------- http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/httpclient-2.3.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19cd40f1bcd41cc7155fa08289bd24c4f9465f5ac4ec0f3118eaf80948e62c74 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19cd40f1bcd41cc7155fa08289bd24c4f9465f5ac4ec0f3118eaf80948e62c74
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 902503
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4....
- License: I'm not sure where I got it from, but I could have sworn that GPL thing was the correct license for Ruby. But you are right, and I changed it. It is now "(Ruby or BSD) and Public Domain", just like ruby.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- So should be ok now
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-httpclient Short Description: HTTP Client interface for ruby Owners: tdawson maxamillion Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-03-12 04:54:25
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla