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-activesupport2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728256
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activesupport2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: codehotter@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/rubygem-active... SRPM URL: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-active...
Changelog: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/rails23
Description: rubygem-activesupport2.3 is a dependency of rails 2.3. (another dependency is rubygem-rdoc, which was built for Fedora 16 by mmorsi. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=254306 )
Although rails 3 was released, and Fedora 15 has moved to rails 3, there are still rails projects working with rails 2.3 series. Rails 3 is not backwards compatible and some key features are not yet working in rails 3. One notable project still on rails 2.3 is the issue tracker redmine: http://www.redmine.org.
Since rails 2 and rails 3 are perfectly parallel installable, I would like to maintain rails 2.3 series in Fedora until it really becomes obsolete. I have built these rails 2.3.12 packages starting from the rails 2.3.8 rpms already in Fedora 14.
This is my first time packaging for Fedora and I am welcoming feedback. Thank you for your time.
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=728256
Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=728256
Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |726690
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=728256
Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |728255
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=728256
Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |728249
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=728256
Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |guillermo.gomez@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |guillermo.gomez@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com 2011-08-10 08:30:58 EDT --- According my deps this the first pkg to review, i will take it and find sponshorship for u if possible.
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=728256
--- Comment #2 from Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com 2011-08-10 09:58:57 EDT --- Created attachment 517615 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=517615 rpmlint output
Pushed new package to replace incorrect Rakefile version in .src.rpm.
Full rpmlint output (233 warnings) attached. There are many warnings related to 'unexpanded macro' which are actually escaped characters, like %3f, in the filenames of the ri documentation. The previous version of the package, activesupport-2.3.8 in F14, had these warnings as well.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm | grep -v unexpanded-macro
rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/failover-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/namespace-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/end_transition-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/logger-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/timeout-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/host-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/retry-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/no_reply-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/port-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/multithread-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/weight-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/cache.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/status-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/offset-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/start_transition-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/servers-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/ActiveSupport/CoreExtensions/Numeric/Time/since-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.src: W: invalid-url Source2: activesupport-23-tests.tgz rubygem-activesupport2.3.src: W: file-size-mismatch Rakefile = 5371, https://raw.github.com/rails/rails/v2.3.12/activesupport/Rakefile = 1 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 233 warnings.
If ignoring the unexpanded-macro warnings of the ri documentation, there are several warnings left. First a list of 'wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding'. I am reluctant to fix these, because stripping \r from actionpack files has been known to break rails before - see comment of mmorsi in that spec file. Besides, the files are not plain text files, but binary documentation files. It is unclear what the effect of stripping \r characters out of a binary file will be. Of course, I am open to a difference of opinion.
Next one, invalid-url, is to be expected. For some reason the tests are not packaged in the upstream source gem, so the activesupport-23-tests.tgz source is created from git. The procedure for reproducing activesupport-23-tests.tgz is documented in the spec file.
Finally, however, I do not understand the file-size-mismatch at all.
curl -O https://raw.github.com/rails/rails/v2.3.12/activesupport/Rakefile results in a file with size of 5371 which is in every respect identical to the file in the source rpm. What is rpmlint complaining about here?
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=728256
--- Comment #3 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com 2011-11-19 10:36:38 EST --- Cant find the srpm file, could you please refresh the links? (apologies for the delay)
Guillermo
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=728256
--- Comment #4 from Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com 2011-11-20 04:50:06 EST --- Tar gz of everything in my rails23 repo, most recent commit: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=snapshot;h=rails23;sf=tgz
Direct link to current source rpm: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-active...
I do like keeping my packaging work in git, but I still need to get some more userfriendly interface.
Thanks
Emanuel
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=728256
Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.gomez@gmail.com 2011-11-23 09:51:34 EST --- Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
NOTE: not a blocker, but i would suggest to get rid of the epoch field. Its not needed and would simply naming the package (this is a brand new package, please adjust changelog if done)
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] : 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 is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [-] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict. [-] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [-] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock/koji. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass.
NOTE: test passes 100% in koji but some tests fails in my station, there has to be some test dependencies hiden.
[x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Toshio, i think this one is clean enough in order to sponsor Emanuel.
APPROVED
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=728256
--- Comment #6 from Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com 2011-11-23 12:01:35 EST --- Thank you Guillermo.
I have removed the Epoch field and updated the changelog.
Can you please give me more information about the failing tests? Which tests fail? They all pass on my workstation in Mock.
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=728256
Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com 2011-11-25 04:01:26 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-activesupport2.3 Short Description: Support and utility classes used by the Rails 2.3 framework Owners: codehotter Branches: f15 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=728256
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-27 16:58:03 EST --- 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=728256
Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-01-06 11:26:43
--- Comment #9 from Emanuel Rietveld codehotter@gmail.com 2012-01-06 11:26:43 EST --- Built successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=281645
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=728256
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-09 03:46:29 EST --- rubygem-activesupport2.3-2.3.14-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-activesupport2.3-2.3.14-1.fc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728256
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla