[Bug 457839] Review Request: rubygem-cobbler - Provides Ruby bindings to interact with a Cobbler server.

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Aug 26 16:16:57 UTC 2008

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
         AssignedTo|bkearney at redhat.com         |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|fedora-review+              |fedora-review?

--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-08-26 12:16:56 EDT ---
I'm going to assign this to myself; I don't mean to steal the ticket, but I
fear losing track of it since I see some things that need fixing.

OK.  First problem: The upstream source does not match what is in this package.
 I downloaded the src.rpm from comment #3, unpacked it, and used spectool -g to
download the Source URLs and compared them.  This either points to a naughty
upstream which modified the tarball without changing the version (which should
never be done) or the tarball was modified before the src.rpm was built (which
should only be done in rare circumstances where legalities require it).

Wow, unpacking the data.tar.gz file inside the gem gives lots of complaints
from tar:
  tar: examples/has_distro.rb: implausibly old time stamp 1969-12-31 18:00:00
What on earth is going on there?

The license of cobbler.rb and all files in lib/cobbler is GPLv2 only.  The
specfile says LGPLv2+.  I see this was discussed earlier but I don't understand
why the sources in the tarball contradict the COPYING file in the tarball.  In
any case, the COPYING file takes second seat here, but I still wouldn't approve
this package until the upstream licensing issue is clarified.

There seems to be a test suite included; is there any reason for not running

X source files do not match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   rubygem(cobbler) = 0.0.1
   rubygem-cobbler = 0.0.1-3.fc10

? %check is not present, but a test suite seems to exist.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

* rubygem(%{gemname}) provided.
* gems installed properly.
* gems installed to proper directory.
* gems, cache, and specifications subdirectories owned properly.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list