[Bug 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.el6|rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.fc20 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-08-07 20:40:50 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.el6 -- 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-ansi Short Description: ANSI at your fingertips! Upstream URL: http://rubyworks.github.com/ansi Owners: stevetraylen Branches: 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Christos Triantafyllidis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Christos Triantafyllidis --- Hello Steve, Thanks for the updated package + the clarifications. I did some tests with EPEL6 too and everything looks fine to me. I'm approving the package. Cheers, Christos -- 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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(steve.traylen@cer | |n.ch) | --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen --- (In reply to Christos Triantafyllidis from comment #1) > > To sum up: > - The only part I'd like to re-visit is the existence of the license file. The LICENSE.txt file is added after the 1.4.3, I'll add the file for sure with the next release. The COPYING.rdoc file is present now. > - The gems should require rubygems package Indeed, added for el6,7 and fc19,20, it's automatic with 21. > - I checked everything on fc20, I see that you include conditionals for el6, > do you want this to land in EPEL repos too? Are you going to go back to el5 > (didn't see any reference to it)? I'd like to do a sanity check on el5/6 if > you plan to build it for them. Will not do 5 but will do 6 and 7. > Cheers, > Christos Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-ansi/rubygem-ansi.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-ansi/rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-2.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 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018
Christos Triantafyllidis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ctria...@redhat.com,
||steve.tray...@cern.ch
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ctria...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(steve.traylen@cer
||n.ch)
--- Comment #1 from Christos Triantafyllidis ---
Hello Steve,
I'll do the review on that.
First I suspect that the correct URL for SRPM is (I did the review based on
that):
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-ansi/rubygem-ansi-1.4.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
I did a scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7199724
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-ansi, rubygem-ansi-doc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
That needs additional check, I don't see it in the resulted packages but no
obvious reason why this is not included although it is available in upstream
source. I suspect that it is simply not included in the .gem file. (I'll return
to that later)
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
rubygems package requires is missing.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
Looks American English to me, minor issue: description is not splitted in 80
(or about 80) chars. It would look better as:
~~~
The ANSI project is a superlative collection of ANSI escape code related
libraries enabling ANSI colorization and styling of console output. Byte for
byte ANSI is the best ANSI code library available for the Ruby programming
language.
~~~
[-]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[!]: 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.
As stated above, license file exists upstream but probably not in .gem file,
I'll re-visit this.
[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 s
[Bug 1116018] Review Request: rubygem-ansi - ruby ansi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116018 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1116024 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024 [Bug 1116024] Review Request: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions - Extensions for the Elasticsearch Rubygem. -- 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
