[Bug 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to greg.hellings from comment #4)
> This appears to be the same problem as the other two reviews.

Yes, I wish I knew what is going on there.

> This was generated from the gem file. I've abbreviated it more appropriately.

That Summary is better, but now rpmlint complains:

rubygem-async_sinatra.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Sinatra plugin for
r
unning on async webservers.

To make rpmlint happy, can we take the dot off the end?  Also, you will need to
change the name of this bug to match the new summary prior to asking for
package creation.

> This text is provided by upstream. Is British/American spelling differences
> an issue? I can alter it if American is expected.

See the 2nd paragraph of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description

> This is likely unnecessary, but the same as the other review. It is
> informative for conveying information related to packaging the gem, but not
> necessary important.

Okay, I will leave it up to you.

> There's no reason it shouldn't be executable, if we're leaving it in.

I'm going by the 3rd paragraph of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

"Files marked as documentation must not cause the package to pull in more
dependencies than it would without the documentation. One simple way to ensure
this in most cases is to remove all executable permissions from files in
%_pkgdocdir."

In this case, a documentation file is adding a dependency on /usr/bin/env.

> I've moved the README.rdoc up to the main package and tagged it with
> %license. But where is the processed CHANGELOG.rdoc? I'm happy to remove it
> if you think it should be, but I've frequently seen those included as %doc
> files.

The HTML version is in
/usr/share/gems/doc/async_sinatra-1.2.1/rdoc/CHANGELOG_rdoc.html.  If you think
the source version is also useful, I'm fine with that; just asking the
question.

-- 
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 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873



--- Comment #4 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the review, new items listed:

https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra-1.2.1-2.fc24.src.rpm
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra.spec

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> 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

This appears to be the same problem as the other two reviews.

> 
> - The Summary is much too long.  Many tools that display package information
>   will cut half or more of that text off.  Please try to think of a Summary
> that
>   fits into much less text; e.g., "Sinatra plugin for asynchronous
> responses".

This was generated from the gem file. I've abbreviated it more appropriately.

> 
> - British spelling is used in %description rather than American spelling. 
> See
>   the spelling output from rpmlint below.

This text is provided by upstream. Is British/American spelling differences an
issue? I can alter it if American is expected.

> 
> - Regarding a license file, README.md does contain the license ... and other
>   stuff, too.  Still, I think it is not a bad idea to add %license README.md
>   to the main package.  I will not insist on this, though, if you don't like
>   the idea.

I have tagged this as a license file

> 
> - Is the Rakefile really useful in the documentation?
> 

This is likely unnecessary, but the same as the other review. It is informative
for conveying information related to packaging the gem, but not necessary
important.

> - One of the Requires for the -doc subpackage is /usr/bin/env.  That appears
> to 
>   be due to Rakefile.  If it is removed from the documentation, then fine.
>   Otherwise, should it be executable?  Should it contain a shebang?

There's no reason it shouldn't be executable, if we're leaving it in.

> 
> - Is there any purpose in including the source files
>   %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.rdoc and %{gem_instdir}/README.rdoc in the -doc
>   subpackage when their processed equivalents are also in that package?

I've moved the README.rdoc up to the main package and tagged it with %license.
But where is the processed CHANGELOG.rdoc? I'm happy to remove it if you think
it should be, but I've frequently seen those included as %doc files.

> 
> - The spec file URL does not correspond to the spec file inside the srpm; see
>   the diff below.
> 
> 
> = 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license.
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [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.
> [!]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873



--- Comment #3 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

- The Summary is much too long.  Many tools that display package information
  will cut half or more of that text off.  Please try to think of a Summary
that
  fits into much less text; e.g., "Sinatra plugin for asynchronous responses".

- British spelling is used in %description rather than American spelling.  See
  the spelling output from rpmlint below.

- Regarding a license file, README.md does contain the license ... and other
  stuff, too.  Still, I think it is not a bad idea to add %license README.md
  to the main package.  I will not insist on this, though, if you don't like
  the idea.

- Is the Rakefile really useful in the documentation?

- One of the Requires for the -doc subpackage is /usr/bin/env.  That appears to 
  be due to Rakefile.  If it is removed from the documentation, then fine.
  Otherwise, should it be executable?  Should it contain a shebang?

- Is there any purpose in including the source files
  %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.rdoc and %{gem_instdir}/README.rdoc in the -doc
  subpackage when their processed equivalents are also in that package?

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


= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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 define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named 

[Bug 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 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 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873



--- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I updated the files to execute tests, as all the packages are available on
Fedora 24. My initial dev work was on a CentOS box where Sinatra is not yet
available.

-- 
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