[Bug 1268744] New: Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Bug ID: 1268744
           Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working
                    with Abstract Syntax Trees
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-ast.sp...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-ast-2....
Description: A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees.
Fedora Account System Username: ilgrad

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Ilya Gradina  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends On|                            |1268742

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742
[Bug 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output
for Bacon test framework

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Ilya Gradina  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |1268745

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745
[Bug 1268745] Review Request: rubygem-parser - A Ruby parser written in
pure Ruby

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

--- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina  ---
New Spec:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-ast.sp...
New SRPM:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-ast-2....

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Roman Joost  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

--- Comment #2 from Roman Joost  ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======

===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rjoost/tmp/1268744-rubygem-ast/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
     /usr/share/gems/doc
[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
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ruby:
[-]: 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).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
     ast-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Ruby:
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: gems should not require rubygems package
[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rubygem-ast-2.3.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-ast-doc-2.3.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-ast-2.3.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Requires
--------
rubygem-ast-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-ast

rubygem-ast (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)

Provides
--------
rubygem-ast-doc:
    rubygem-ast-doc

rubygem-ast:
    rubygem(ast)
    rubygem-ast

Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/ast-2.3.0.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
15d97cf7f3430351a8663f2c5fb7591fb29f700fa28576c46c53b992e912e85e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
15d97cf7f3430351a8663f2c5fb7591fb29f700fa28576c46c53b992e912e85e

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268744 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L
/tmp/rubygemrepo/ -v
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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Built with local dependencies:
    /tmp/rubygemrepo/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
    /tmp/rubygemrepo/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Roman Joost  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Roman Joost  ---
Looks good - approved.

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Vít Ondruch  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Could you please consider removing the following build dependencies:

BuildRequires: rubygem(bacon-colored_output)
BuildRequires: rubygem(simplecov)
BuildRequires: rubygem(coveralls)
BuildRequires: rubygem(yard)

I don't think they are strictly necessary for build of the package. We don't
care about code coverage (simplecov, coveralls), the documentation doesn't need
to by in yard formant and if the bacon output is colored or not, it changes
nothing.

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

--- Comment #5 from Ilya Gradina  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4)
> Could you please consider removing the following build dependencies:
>
> BuildRequires: rubygem(bacon-colored_output)
> BuildRequires: rubygem(simplecov)
> BuildRequires: rubygem(coveralls)
> BuildRequires: rubygem(yard)
>
> I don't think they are strictly necessary for build of the package. We don't
> care about code coverage (simplecov, coveralls), the documentation doesn't
> need to by in yard formant and if the bacon output is colored or not, it
> changes nothing.

new spec:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-ast.sp...
new srpm:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-ast-2....

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

--- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #5)
LGTM. Could you please ask for repository, import and build the package, since
it was already approved by Roman previously?

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744

Bugzilla account termination  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]           |[e-mail]