Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742189 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi <mmo...@redhat.com> 2011-10-03 07:20:56 EDT --- New Spec / SPRM: Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock.spec SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc15.src.rpm > rubygem-webmock.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/webmock-1.7.6/Rakefile /usr/bin/env > > From rpmlint source ... '''An included file marked as %doc creates a possible > additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be > caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the > package's documentation.''' Fixed, unmarked Rakefile as doc. Also changed /usr/bin/env rake to /usr/bin/rake > > rubygem-webmock-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/webmock-1.7.6/ri/WebMock/RequestSignature/eql%3f-i.yaml > %3f > <snip> > > From rpmlint source ... '''This package contains a file whose path contains > something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a > misspelling. Please check your specfile.''' > These can be ignored, they occur in any rubygem that ships ri documentation > > [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the > > actual license > > The upstream LICENSE file seems to indicate MIT, does this need to be updated? > Fixed > Note, there are too many files listed as %doc. For example, the Rakefile > probably shouldn't be a %doc. Maybe the same with other source code? > > %exclude %{geminstdir}/Rakefile > Unmarked Rakefile as doc, the others are appropriately marked as doc (include tests and such) > > [ FAIL ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables > > should > > be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files > > section > > must include a %defattr(...) line. This is no longer needed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions > > [ FAIL ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > > Fixed, see http://fpaste.org/GNSM/ > This is no longer needed / should not be present http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > > [ WARN ] - The Ruby library files in a pure Ruby package must be placed > > into Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] . The specfile must get that path using > > %{!?ruby_sitelib: %global ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e 'puts > > Config::CONFIG["sitelibdir"] ')} > > The specfile is using a different method for locating /usr/lib/ruby/*. Should > it be using %{ruby_sitelib} instead? Or does this not apply since this is > providing a rubygem? > Yes according to the Fedora gem packaging guidelines, we define gemdir and geminstdir correctly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems > > [ WARN ] - The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be empty. > > %build is empty, %prep is not ... I've adjusted per the ruby guidelines > slightly. However this is a *should* requirement, not a *must*. > I would prefer to leave it as it is. The reason being if we ever have to patch the gem, the gem install needs to occur in the %prep section before we can run the %patch commands there as well. > > [ FAIL ] - The install should be performed with the command 'gem install > > --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}' > > This command is currently used in the %prep. I've adjusted slighty to > accommodate the *should* requirement. Feel free to use if desired. > > http://fpaste.org/GNSM/ > Again would prefer to leave as is unless this is a major blocker. Thank you greatly for the review! -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review