[Bug 1210826] New: Review Request: rubygem-pathspec - Use to match path patterns such as gitignore
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
Bug ID: 1210826 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-pathspec - Use to match path patterns such as gitignore 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-pathspec.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Use to match path patterns such as gitignore.
Fedora Account System Username: orion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
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?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= 1. Currently the %files list has the entire "%{gem_instdir}" directory. This means that CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE, and README.md ship in /usr/share/gems/gems/pathspec-0.0.2/, but these are not marked as %doc. You can use %{gem_libdir} instead:
%dir %{gem_instdir} %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE %doc %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md %{gem_libdir}
2. %{gem_docdir} should go into a rubygem-pathspec-doc sub-package.
3. %exclude %{gem_cache}
4. Mind running the tests? You can do something like this for %check:
%check pushd .%{gem_instdir} rspec -Ilib spec popd
This will BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)
===== 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 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. [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]: gems should require rubygems package [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). [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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: [!]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_libdir} [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
===== 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-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-pathspec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore rubygem-pathspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- rubygem-pathspec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems)
Provides -------- rubygem-pathspec: rubygem(pathspec) rubygem-pathspec
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/downloads/pathspec-0.0.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7ffd0ba9d0f60bef96d69d4a46b0a5b2e593d6ece5b6d640e82d68e48beea7df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ffd0ba9d0f60bef96d69d4a46b0a5b2e593d6ece5b6d640e82d68e48beea7df
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1210826 -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=1210826
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- So, pathspec doesn't ship a spec file in the gemfile. Should I switch to building from source for this then?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- I imported your SRPM into a Git repo so it's clearer. Here's how I recommend handling the tests: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-pathspec.git/commi...
I use a small shell script (rubygem-pathspec-generate-tarball.sh) to download the upstream source zipfile from a GitHub tag, then strip down that zipfile so it only contains the tests. At that point, %setup can decompress Source2 so that it appears to be part of the tree.
To fix this upstream, I've submitted https://github.com/highb/pathspec-ruby/pull/4
Ruby's RSpec library has made some API breaks between 2.x and 3.x, so I've also updated the .spec there to handle both APIs depending on the %{fedora} version. This allows the package to build on Fedora 21, 22, and 23.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- This is a little different, but seems to work:
* Fri Apr 10 2015 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 0.0.2-2 - Fix files - Doc subpackage - Run tests
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- All the issues mentioned above are fixed in 0.0.2-2, and that's a great idea with "svn export" for the tests. Scratch build looks good: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9507781
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
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-pathspec Short Description: Use to match path patterns such as gitignore Upstream URL: https://rubygems.org/gems/pathspec Owners: orion Branches: f22 f21 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
--- 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=1210826
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=1210826
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826
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=1210826
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 16:12:08
--- 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