[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-actioncable-5.0.0-1
   ||.fc25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-26 13:13:27



--- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Thank you for the review and processing the package request. The package is now
available in Rawhide.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-actioncable

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #8 from Jun Aruga  ---
Okay,
I am APPROVED.

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #6)
> > Hi, 
> > I reviewed the files.
> > 
> > # Highlight
> > 
> > I have just one thing to ask you.
> > 
> > 1. These 2 files have the comment related on the copyright. Is there
> > something to do in the RPM spec file for these files?
> > 
> > ./lib/action_cable/connection/client_socket.rb
> > ./lib/action_cable/connection/stream.rb
> > 
> > # This class is heavily based on faye-websocket-ruby
> > #---
> > # Copyright (c) 2010-2015 James Coglan
> 
> I don't see any problem with this. faye-websocket-ruby is MIT licensed [1],
> so you can do almost everything with the code.
> 
> 
> Could you please approve the package if you have no other concerns? Thank
> you.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://github.com/faye/faye-websocket-ruby

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #6)
> Hi, 
> I reviewed the files.
> 
> # Highlight
> 
> I have just one thing to ask you.
> 
> 1. These 2 files have the comment related on the copyright. Is there
> something to do in the RPM spec file for these files?
> 
> ./lib/action_cable/connection/client_socket.rb
> ./lib/action_cable/connection/stream.rb
> 
> # This class is heavily based on faye-websocket-ruby
> #---
> # Copyright (c) 2010-2015 James Coglan

I don't see any problem with this. faye-websocket-ruby is MIT licensed [1], so
you can do almost everything with the code.


Could you please approve the package if you have no other concerns? Thank you.



[1] https://github.com/faye/faye-websocket-ruby

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #6 from Jun Aruga  ---
Hi, 
I reviewed the files.

# Highlight

I have just one thing to ask you.

1. These 2 files have the comment related on the copyright. Is there something
to do in the RPM spec file for these files?

./lib/action_cable/connection/client_socket.rb
./lib/action_cable/connection/stream.rb

# This class is heavily based on faye-websocket-ruby
#---
# Copyright (c) 2010-2015 James Coglan


Everything else is ok.


> Also note, that there are some TODOs in the spec file, but:
> * I was lazy to explore, how to setup PostgreSQL
> * I am not sure to executed the JS test cases, since the upstream way would
>  require to package rubygem-blade, which has a whole lot of dependencies ...

Sure.

As I am also not sure how to run the JS unit test case without blade,
I just checked the blade too on the upstream actioncable right now.
And I found the CI mode.
I thought we might find something if we would run it with debug mode or debug
log.


```
$ vi Rakefile
  #Blade.start(interface: :runner)
  => Blade.start(interface: :ci)
$ bundler exec rake test:javascript
Then access to http://localhost:9876

```

# The result of the fedora-review

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 52 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git
 /fedora-packages/review/1354545-rubygem-actioncable/licensecheck.txt
[?]: 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
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the 

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #5 from Jun Aruga  ---

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #2)
> I said "but the test version should be soon available at Copr [1].", please
> note the *should* and *soon*. I tested with manually installed package.
> 
> BTW if you are going to review the package, you should change 3 things:
> 
> 1. fedora-review? (you did that)
> 2. Status to "ASSIGNED"
> 3. Assigned To set to yourself

Sorry I missed your comments. I am going to check with your AC.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jar...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
The build of AC is available in Copr now:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/ror5/package/rubygem-actioncable/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #2)
I said "but the test version should be soon available at Copr [1].", please
note the *should* and *soon*. I tested with manually installed package.

BTW if you are going to review the package, you should change 3 things:

1. fedora-review? (you did that)
2. Status to "ASSIGNED"
3. Assigned To set to yourself

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jar...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Jun Aruga  ---
rubygem-actioncable depends on actionpack.
And it is also specified on the rpm spec file.
```
BuildRequires: rubygem(actionpack) = %{version}
```

However there is no rubygem-actionpack 5.0.0 on Copr too.
(It seems that Copr has issue to upload the SRPM file right now.)
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/ror5/monitor/

How did you build the actioncable by yourself?

I am working for rubygem-actionpack right now.
But if you have the built rubygem-actionpack-5.0.0 by yourself, could you
upload it on Copr?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354545] Review Request: rubygem-actioncable - WebSocket framework for Rails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354545



--- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Ups, I left there one debug comment, so this is new version:

Spec URL: 
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-actioncable.git/plain/rubygem-actioncable.spec?id=8fdc29a98fda684e4b6676bdc99e26a9e701029a
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-actioncable-5.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org