[Bug 1210828] New: Review Request: rubygem-semantic - Utility class for parsing, storing, and comparing versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Bug ID: 1210828 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-semantic - Utility class for parsing, storing, and comparing versions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: orion@cora.nwra.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-semantic.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Semantic Version utility class for parsing, storing, and comparing versions.
Fedora Account System Username: orion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Some initial comments...
- License is set as "ASL 2.0", but upstream's license is really MIT
- The code in %check uses rspec, so you'll need to BuildRequire: rubygems(rspec)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- * Sun Apr 12 2015 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.4.0-2 - Fix license - Add BR rubygem(rspec)
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Issues: ======= - rpmlint found that "Documentaion" is misspelled in rubygem-semantic-doc's %description.
- %{gem_docdir} should be marked as %doc
- You've removed rubygem-semantic-doc's dependency on rubygem-semantic, which is fine (and that would actually be a nice improvement to gem2rpm). However, the doc subpackage does store its files in /usr/share/gems/doc/, so I'm thinking the doc subpackage should at least depend on ruby(rubygems) in order to have that directory available.
- In the %files list, instead of %{gem_instdir}/lib/, you can use %{gem_libdir}
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: Package uses %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 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby: [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Ruby: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm rubygem-semantic-doc-1.4.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-semantic-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Documentaion -> Documentation, Documentary, Documented rubygem-semantic-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- rubygem-semantic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems)
rubygem-semantic-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- rubygem-semantic: rubygem(semantic) rubygem-semantic
rubygem-semantic-doc: rubygem-semantic-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/downloads/semantic-1.4.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a36d3e75df19b6bc650f6cfda31cdfbd204d935d0dd7b29a4e3a65ddf1c69362 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a36d3e75df19b6bc650f6cfda31cdfbd204d935d0dd7b29a4e3a65ddf1c69362
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1210828 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--yum 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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- * Sat Apr 18 2015 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.4.0-3 - Fix typo - Make doc require rubygems - Mark doc %%{doc} - Use %%{gem_libdir}
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-semantic.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Looks good! APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks for the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-semantic Short Description: Utility class for parsing, storing, and comparing versions Upstream URL: https://rubygems.org/gems/semantic Owners: orion Branches: f22 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22, rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22 puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22 rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6523/puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22 puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6523/puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc | |22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-06-04 16:12:06
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla