[Bug 1046995] New: Review Request: rubygem-escape_utils - Faster string escaping routines for your web apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Bug ID: 1046995 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-escape_utils - Faster string escaping routines for your web apps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.0-1.fc21.s... Description: Quickly perform HTML, URL, URI and Javascript escaping/unescaping Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer
F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6337848
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Here's a new version to correct a small problem with the binary component of the gem.
* Sat Dec 28 2013 Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com - 1.0.0-2 - Ship escape_utils.so in the correct location
Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.0-2.fc21.s...
F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6337896
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Upstream has released a new version.
* Sat Feb 15 2014 Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com - 1.0.1-1 - Update to escape_utils 1.0.1 - Remove benchmark directory during %%prep
Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-1.fc21.s...
F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6534175
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Leon Weber leon@leonweber.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leon@leonweber.de
--- Comment #3 from Leon Weber leon@leonweber.de --- Looks good to me. This is an **INFORMAL** review.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/review/1046995-rubygem- escape_utils/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 [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: 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. [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. 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: [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]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- escape_utils-doc [?]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [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]: 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-escape_utils-1.0.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm rubygem-escape_utils-doc-1.0.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm rubygem-escape_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescaping -> uncapping rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescaping -> uncapping 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-escape_utils-doc rubygem-escape_utils rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescaping -> uncapping 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- rubygem-escape_utils-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-escape_utils
rubygem-escape_utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libruby.so.2.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby(release) ruby(rubygems)
Provides -------- rubygem-escape_utils-doc: rubygem-escape_utils-doc
rubygem-escape_utils: escape_utils.so()(64bit) rubygem(escape_utils) rubygem-escape_utils rubygem-escape_utils(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-escape_utils: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/escape_utils-1.0.1/lib/escape_utils/escape_utils.so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #4 from Leon Weber leon@leonweber.de --- (In reply to Leon Weber from comment #3)
- Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
…and I forgot to remove that line from the paste, disregard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Achilleas Pipinellis axilleas@axilleas.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |axilleas@axilleas.me Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |axilleas@axilleas.me Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Achilleas Pipinellis axilleas@axilleas.me --- Hey Ken,
Can you update to be in par with the latest ruby 2.1 guidelines?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Sure, thanks for taking the review.
* Thu May 08 2014 Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com - 1.0.1-2 - Adjustments for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.1 - Update %%check for Minitest 5
Exact change in Git: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-escape_utils.git/co...
Spec URL: SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-2.fc21.s...
F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6825622
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #7 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- I just realized I missed the Spec URL in my previous comment. Oops.
Here's the links again, for fedora-review's benefit:
Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-2.fc21.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Achilleas Pipinellis axilleas@axilleas.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Achilleas Pipinellis axilleas@axilleas.me --- One minor thing, try when moving the binary extension, to replace escape_utils with %gem_name macro. Other than that looks good.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: 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. [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. 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: [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]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). [x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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- escape_utils-doc [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]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [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]: 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-escape_utils-1.0.1-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm rubygem-escape_utils-doc-1.0.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-escape_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescaping -> uncapping rubygem-escape_utils.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/escape_utils-1.0.1/gem.build_complete rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescaping -> uncapping 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-escape_utils-doc rubygem-escape_utils rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills rubygem-escape_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescaping -> uncapping rubygem-escape_utils.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/escape_utils-1.0.1/gem.build_complete 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- rubygem-escape_utils-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-escape_utils
rubygem-escape_utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libruby.so.2.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby(rubygems)
Provides -------- rubygem-escape_utils-doc: rubygem-escape_utils-doc
rubygem-escape_utils: rubygem(escape_utils) rubygem-escape_utils rubygem-escape_utils(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- rubygem-escape_utils: /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/escape_utils-1.0.1/escape_utils/escape_utils.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/escape_utils-1.0.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 669467df9a8dae259211f5afb5be9dff88879d855af14afee2b5778bf6530960 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 669467df9a8dae259211f5afb5be9dff88879d855af14afee2b5778bf6530960
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1046995 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you for the review!
Good idea about using %{gem_name} during %install. I've made this change here: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-escape_utils.git/co...
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-escape_utils Short Description: Faster string escaping routines for your web apps Upstream URL: https://github.com/brianmario/escape_utils Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-3.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046995
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1- | |3.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-06-09 23:03:59
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-escape_utils-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla