[Bug 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to greg.hellings from comment #3)
> > - Changelog entries must contain contact information, including a name and a
> >   (possibly obfuscated) email address.  See:
> >   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
> 
> Ah, artifact of gem2rpm. This should be corrected now.

This is how gem2rpm tries to obtain the packager information:

https://github.com/fedora-ruby/gem2rpm/blob/master/lib/gem2rpm.rb#L79

IOW you probably don't want to generated .spec files using your root account.

-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-03-19 17:26:39



-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-em-spec-0.2.7-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-em-spec-0.2.7-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-4468bfa1ad

-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-em-spec-0.2.7-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-4468bfa1ad

-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rubygem-em-spec

-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to greg.hellings from comment #3)
> I see the BR for that, but I don't see the Requires explicitly stated.

Hmmm, you're right.  It must be automatically generated.  Yet fedora-review
objects to it anyway.  Interesting.  I confess that I don't know what to make
of that.

> I pestered upstream and they made a 0.2.7 release that explicitly states
> MIT. Previous versions were declared MIT on Debian's mailing list. New
> package reflects the 0.2.7 version.

Wonderful!  That's a win for open source.

The new SRPM looks much better.  I just have a couple of spec file cleanliness
notes:
- The Group tags are not used by anything in Fedora, so can be omitted if you
wish.
- BuildArch: noarch on the main package is sufficient; it does not need to be
repeated for the -doc subpackage.

Neither of those are blockers, so this package is APPROVED.

-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658



--- Comment #3 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the review, comments below.

New URLs:

https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-em-spec/rubygem-em-spec.spec
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-em-spec/rubygem-em-spec-0.2.7-1.el7.src.rpm


(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package contains Requires: ruby(release).  This is for non-gem ruby
> packages
>   only.  See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Compatibility

I see the BR for that, but I don't see the Requires explicitly stated.

> 
> - "OpenSource" is not a valid license name.  The list of valid licenses is
> here:
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
> 
> - I do not see anything in the upstream package that indicates a license for
>   this package.  This is a blocker.  We must know that the code is released
>   under a valid open source license.

I pestered upstream and they made a 0.2.7 release that explicitly states MIT.
Previous versions were declared MIT on Debian's mailing list. New package
reflects the 0.2.7 version.

> 
> - Changelog entries must contain contact information, including a name and a
>   (possibly obfuscated) email address.  See:
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

Ah, artifact of gem2rpm. This should be corrected now.

> 
> - I don't think the package URL is correct.  The git repository at
>   http://github.com/schmurfy/em-spec hasn't had a commit since 2010, and its
>   releases stop at 0.2.2.  This package's URL seems to really be
>   https://github.com/joshbuddy/em-spec.

Corrected

> 
> - Consider adding a %check script to run the tests.

It appears that this is an issue upstream that has not received attention. This
is the exact set of errors I get when executing the tests.

https://github.com/joshbuddy/em-spec/issues/16

> 
> - The spec file URL does not correspond to the spec file inside the srpm; see
>   the diff below.

Hopefully this is corrected now, with the 0.2.7 source tarball.

> 
> - This conditional is not right:
> 
> %if 0%{?rhel} <= 7
> Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
> %endif
> 
>   On Fedora, 0%{?rhel} evaluates to 0, which is less than or equal to 7, so
>   the Provides is used.

Corrected to be exact equality. I do not plan to branch this into EPEL6, and
the conditional can be expanded at that time.

> 
> - What is the hidden file %{_datadir}/gems/gems/em-spec-0.2.6/.rspec ?  Is it
>   necessary?

It provides default options to be passed to the rspec command (a test runner
for Ruby). That particular one does not provide any important options
(--colour) and these options are not important at runtime. I've added it to the
excluded list.

> 
> = MUST items =
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>  other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>  Guidelines.
> [-]: 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.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license.
> [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [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.
> [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.
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>  Some exceptions noted above.
> [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package does 

[Bug 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).  This is for non-gem ruby packages
  only.  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Compatibility

- "OpenSource" is not a valid license name.  The list of valid licenses is
here:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

- I do not see anything in the upstream package that indicates a license for
  this package.  This is a blocker.  We must know that the code is released
  under a valid open source license.

- Changelog entries must contain contact information, including a name and a
  (possibly obfuscated) email address.  See:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

- I don't think the package URL is correct.  The git repository at
  http://github.com/schmurfy/em-spec hasn't had a commit since 2010, and its
  releases stop at 0.2.2.  This package's URL seems to really be
  https://github.com/joshbuddy/em-spec.

- Consider adding a %check script to run the tests.

- The spec file URL does not correspond to the spec file inside the srpm; see
  the diff below.

- This conditional is not right:

%if 0%{?rhel} <= 7
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
%endif

  On Fedora, 0%{?rhel} evaluates to 0, which is less than or equal to 7, so
  the Provides is used.

- What is the hidden file %{_datadir}/gems/gems/em-spec-0.2.6/.rspec ?  Is it
  necessary?

= MUST items =

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
 Some exceptions noted above.
[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]: 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

Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not 

[Bug 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||loganje...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Jerry James  ---
I will take this 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||rubygem-em-spec



-- 
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