[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-01-11 02:19:11 -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-8.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-8.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-8.fc20 -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Nitesh Narayan Lal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Nitesh Narayan Lal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||niteshnarayanlalleo@gmail.c ||om --- Comment #21 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name:rubygem-em-socksify Short Description: Ruby gem for transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol Upstream URL: https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify Owners: niteshnarayan, mmorsi Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Ken Dreyer --- The latest changes look good. I've sponsored you into the packagers group. (Please remove FE-NEEDSPONSOR from your other package review requests). Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #19 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Final changes made: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-8.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
--- Comment #18 from Mo Morsi ---
(In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #17)
> With the latest Ruby guidelines for Fedora 21, you will not need to
> explicitly declare Requires or Provides for your gem. Please use dist tags
> to wrap the Requires and Provides, like so:
>
> %if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20}
> Requires: ruby(release)
> Requires: rubygems
> Requires: rubygem(eventmachine) >= 1.0.0.beta.4
> %endif
>
Am a little confused as to whether ruby(release) should or should not be
included, brought up the issue on the ruby sig mailing list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-May/001588.html
> As a separate issue, please mark the %{gem_instdir}/README.md file as
> "%doc", since it is documentation, not code. (that one's confusing since
> it's already in a -doc subpackage...)
It was my understanding that files in the 'doc' subpackage didn't need to be
marked as %doc (since that is the whole intent of the subpackage). I could be
wrong on this, and know that it is ok to mark doc subpkg files as %doc, so am
fine either way.
>
> Please make these changes and I'll approve the package and sponsor you (with
> the caveat that mmorsi will be your main mentor and responsible for your
> actions in Fedora going forward).
>
Thanks Ken, yes I am fine w/ this. Nitesh I just ask that if you are unsure
about something, just ask me before committing / building. Most likely after a
while this will be unnecessary but at the beginning there are many
gotcha's/edge cases. Thanks again for the new package.
--
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
--- Comment #17 from Ken Dreyer ---
Hi Nitesh, please accept my apologies for taking so long to get back on this
review.
The package looks good.
With the latest Ruby guidelines for Fedora 21, you will not need to explicitly
declare Requires or Provides for your gem. Please use dist tags to wrap the
Requires and Provides, like so:
%if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20}
Requires: ruby(release)
Requires: rubygems
Requires: rubygem(eventmachine) >= 1.0.0.beta.4
%endif
and
%if 0%{?fc19} || 0%{?fc20}
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
%endif
When Fedora 19 goes end-of-life, you can remove the "0%{?fc19}" part, and when
Fedora 20 goes end-of-life, you can remove the whole Requires and Provides
sections entirely.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag for more information about
dist tags.
As a separate issue, please mark the %{gem_instdir}/README.md file as "%doc",
since it is documentation, not code. (that one's confusing since it's already
in a -doc subpackage...)
Please make these changes and I'll approve the package and sponsor you (with
the caveat that mmorsi will be your main mentor and responsible for your
actions in Fedora going forward).
Full fedora-review output follows.
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[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]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
See above note about wrappingn Requires and Provides in a dist tag.
[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.
[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]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(rel
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #15 from Mo Morsi --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #14) > It's really important that you understand this and the reasons why this is > bad. We need to avoid the appearance that Fedora is ignoring or changing > authors' rights under copyright law. +1, Nitesh also please make sure to incorporate _all_ feedback into package updates. Even if this means taking an extra day or two to double check you got everything. It saves the reviewer from wasting time. Thank you. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #16 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I am really sorry for the missed out thing. I will make sure that I don't make these kind of mistakes in the future. SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-7.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #14 from Ken Dreyer --- Hi Nitesh, the copyright statement in the rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-6.fc20.src.rpm's MIT-LICENSE file still contains the factual errors indicated in Comment 12. Please see https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify/blob/master/MIT-LICENSE . It's really important that you understand this and the reasons why this is bad. We need to avoid the appearance that Fedora is ignoring or changing authors' rights under copyright law. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #13 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, Thanks for your comments, here are the changed files: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-6.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
Ken Dreyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #12 from Ken Dreyer ---
Hi Nitesh, a couple of additional comments:
- The MIT-LICENSE file in rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-5.fc20.src.rpm says
"Copyright (c) 2009 - 2014, David Waite and Other Contributors". This is not
correct. The main contributor is Ilya Grigorik, and the first commit in Git is
from 2011 (not 2009).
We need to be very careful that we do not accidentally indicate that copyright
belongs to the wrong person.
(Please see the next item below for a corrected copyright statement in the
MIT-LICENSE file.)
- When you see that the MIT license file is missing from upstream, the first
place to attempt to solve that is upstream, rather than downstream in Fedora.
I've submitted this change here:
https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify/pull/15
In the future, if you are packaging software that does not have the full
license text, please submit this sort of change upstream first.
- For Ruby Gem packages, it's also useful for upstream to have the MIT license
metadata in the gemspec. Here's the proposal for that:
https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify/pull/14 . Again, in the future, please
do submit this sort of thing upstream for your packages.
- Please update the URL to use "https" instead of "http". I've proposed this
upstream here: https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify/pull/16
- Please remove the "Generated from ... gem2rpm" comment at the top of the
file. This line is not necessary for the package and it will become stale over
time.
- Please remove the trailing spaces at the end of the rubygems-devel line (line
17) and popd line (line 56):
17 BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
56 #popd
- Please remove the following line:
BuildRequires: ruby
This is only necessary on the arch-specific (binary) gems. Since your
em-socksify package is noarch, you only need ruby(release).
- Please adjust the following line:
%{gem_instdir}/spec/*
to be simply
%{gem_instdir}/spec
This will tell RPM to capture the spec directory as well as the contents
within. Please remove the trailing whitespace from this line as well.
- Please add a second percent sign (%) to the macros that are commented in
%check. So "%check" becomes "%%check", and "./%{gem_instdir}" becomes
"./%%{gem_instdir}". The reason for doing this is that rpmlint will complain
about unescaped macros in the comments. Even if a macro is commented, RPM will
still expand it. Sometimes its innocuous and it's not a problem, but other
times it can cause unexpected behavior, so it's always best to escape all the
rpmlint warnings about this to be on the safe side.
--
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|mmo...@redhat.com |ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #11 from Mo Morsi --- Package looks good to me, so giving you unofficial ACK. Assigning to ktdreyer for official review / sponsorship as discussed -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #10 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Sorry for the mistakes, I had made the changes. Following are the final files: SPECS:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPMS:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-5.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
--- Comment #9 from Mo Morsi ---
Hey nitesh a couple things:
* Sorry if there was some confusion above but you _need_ "Requires:
rubygem(eventmachine) >= 1.0.0.beta4" but should _not_ have "BuildRequires:
rubygem(eventmachine)"
* The "%{gem_instdir}/lib/*" should not be marked as %{doc}, rather just have
"%{gem_libdir}" in the files list
Build looks good: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6667816
--
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #8 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had modified the spec as per the suggestion: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-4.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #7 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had modified the spec as per the suggestion: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-4.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #6 from Mo Morsi --- One additional thing, the 'rubygems' requirements should be 'Requires: rubygems' and not 'Requires: ruby(rubygems)' http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems fedora-review will complain otherwise. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
--- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi ---
Hey Nitesh a couple more things:
- You need to include the full url to the spec and srpm in your comment for the
fedora-review tool to pick it up (eg the srpm is missing 'http://'
- Since you are not running the test suite the BuildRequires: (eventmachine)
mentioned above can be omitted. Also you can remove the BuildRequires(rspec)
from the spec
- There is an extraneous %pushd in the %install section that should be removed
- The %{gem_spec} file should _not_ be excluded (necessary for the gem to work)
- The package should have a copy of the MIT license, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Thanks
--
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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #4 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had updated the SPECS, thanks for holding on with this and helping. SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPMS:niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-3.fc20.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi --- Hey Nitesh, looked at the updated package - As w/ the others please rename spec to 'rubygem-em-socksify.spec' - You will need to add "BuildRequires: rubygem(eventmachine) >= 1.0.0.beta4" along w/ the other BuildRequires - .gitignore should be removed or excluded - "Updated as per the comments" should be changed to something more descriptive - The %check command should be "rspec -Ilib spec" - You will need to sed out bundler in spec/helper.rb before running rspec I made these changes change and ran the build locally and on koji but it failed in both environments: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6587064 http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7065/6587065/build.log I suspect this is the culprit https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify/issues/10 Admittedly didn't fully investigate but it looks like the spec is requiring an external proxy to work. This wouldn't work for Fedora (external connections aren't permitted in mock/koji) so we could: - try to get the issue resolved upstream (add a comment to that issue) - patch the spec/socksify_spec.rb ourselves to make it compatible - simply skip the specs (since there are only 2 tests and they both connect to external services) Feel free to pick a solution and implement or we can discuss more here or on IRC. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #2 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Thanks for the comments I had made the changes as per the comments: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-2.fc19.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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mmo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi --- Taking this one Some minor style issues: - In files list the spec dir, Gemfile, Rakefile, and gemspec should be marked as %doc - On same not marking files as %doc in the 'doc' subpackage is a bit redundant, though not against guidelines - Seem to be a bit of extraneous whitespace, consider tidying up Package does not build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6556112 You are trying to use rspec in the %check section w/out listing that as a build requirement. Also I believe your going to need to list the eventmachine dependency as a build requirement so that the test suite fully functions -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: em-socksify |Review Request: |- Transparent proxy support |rubygem-em-socksify - |for any EventMachine|Transparent proxy support |protocol|for any EventMachine ||protocol Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
