[Bug 1324063] New: Review Request: rubygem-cucumber-core - Core library for the Cucumber BDD app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
Bug ID: 1324063 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-cucumber-core - Core library for the Cucumber BDD app Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vondruch@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-cucumber-core.git/... SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-cucumber-core-1.4.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Core library for the Cucumber BDD app. Fedora Account System Username: vondruch
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13564836
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
Pavel Valena pvalena@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pvalena@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pvalena@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Valena pvalena@redhat.com --- I am taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
Pavel Valena pvalena@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Valena pvalena@redhat.com --- The package looks good altogether. I have just one note:
I would not include the %{gem_instdir}/spec into the -doc package, as some of the tests are failing.
But that is not an issue, therefore
I APPROVE this package.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - None
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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]: 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: [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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. - Unindent dependency is not in fedora, therefore some tests are failing. [x]: 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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Ruby: [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [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 =====
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-cucumber-core-1.4.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-cucumber-core-doc-1.4.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-cucumber-core-1.4.0-1.fc25.src.rpm rubygem-cucumber-core.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- rubygem-cucumber-core-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-cucumber-core
rubygem-cucumber-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(gherkin)
Provides -------- rubygem-cucumber-core-doc: rubygem-cucumber-core-doc
rubygem-cucumber-core: rubygem(cucumber-core) rubygem-cucumber-core
Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/cucumber-core-1.4.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 683809be76902c34d056a4554d2ef1c060d256d222e9d304f50926fbf2840538 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 683809be76902c34d056a4554d2ef1c060d256d222e9d304f50926fbf2840538
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -p -n rubygem-cucumber-core Buildroot used: fedora-23-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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #2)
The package looks good altogether. I have just one note:
I would not include the %{gem_instdir}/spec into the -doc package, as some of the tests are failing.
The test suite functionality was never the measure for its inclusion. We include test suites even if it is not executed at all and nobody knows if it works. We are also doing various changes to test suites to make them work, but then don't include the changes in the package, because it serves just as a documentation, not as a executable code.
Otherwise, thx for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1124273
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124273 [Bug 1124273] rubygem-cucumber-2.3.3 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-cucumber-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324063
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |rubygem-cucumber-core-1.4.0 | |-1.fc25 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-04-06 09:10:22
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla