[Bug 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0 |rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0 |.10-2.fc21 |.10-2.el7 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0 |rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0 |.10-2.el7 |.10-2.fc20 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0 ||.10-2.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-10 12:00:53 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.fc21 -- 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.el7 -- 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Issues: === - %changelog doesn't contain a correct real name (Fedora cloud user) - require lines have many trailing spaces (:set list) No problem will fix above of course. - el7/f20 requires should have version specifications to match gem I normally leave these out on purpose, but I guess now the requires are automatic the choice goes away. -- 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #3 from Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #2) - el7/f20 requires should have version specifications to match gem I normally leave these out on purpose, but I guess now the requires are automatic the choice goes away. I can understand as it's fiddly to maintain, though I find that rubygems still validates the gemspec against the gems it finds when loading the library, so it can lead to runtime errors. Adding versions to the RPM deps too means we can catch it when packages are built or pushed to the distribution. -- 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-apipie-bindings/rubygem-apipie-bindings.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-apipie-bindings/rubygem-apipie-bindings-0.0.10-2.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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466
Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dcl...@redhat.com |steve.tray...@cern.ch
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- none
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/dcleal/tmp/1144466/1144466-rubygem-apipie-
bindings/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/apipie-bindings-0.0.10/doc
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc, /usr/share/gems/gems/apipie-bindings-0.0.10/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.
[x]: 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.
[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 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(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note:
[Bug 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-apipie-bindings Short Description: The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs Upstream URL: http://github.com/Apipie/apipie-bindings Owners: stevetraylen Branches: f20 f21 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1144466] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-bindings - The Ruby bindings for Apipie documented APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144466
Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||dcl...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcl...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- %changelog doesn't contain a correct real name (Fedora cloud user)
- require lines have many trailing spaces (:set list)
- el7/f20 requires should have version specifications to match gem
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/dcleal/tmp/1144466/1144466-rubygem-apipie-
bindings/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/apipie-bindings-0.0.10/doc
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc, /usr/share/gems/gems/apipie-bindings-0.0.10/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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.
[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 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(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note:
