[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(germano.massullo@ | |gmail.com) | Last Closed||2017-12-04 09:19:38 --- Comment #15 from Germano Massullo --- Closing because I no longer need this 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Fabio Alessandro Locati changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|f...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Fabio Alessandro Locati changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(germano.massullo@ ||gmail.com) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #14 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- ok, then use it, because ATM you are adding it to the package but you are not using it -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #13 from Germano Massullo --- (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #11) > SOURCE1 is not used anywhere. It should be used somewhere or removed it is still required in lastest em-proxy release -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch --- BTW it would be also good idea to execute some test suite, if that is 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #11 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- SOURCE1 is not used anywhere. It should be used somewhere or removed -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(germano.massullo@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #10 from Germano Massullo --- SPEC: https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-em-proxy/rubygem-em-proxy.spec SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-em-proxy/rubygem-em-proxy-0.1.9-1.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) from comment #7)
> I would suggest to avoid env for Fedora packages for two reasons:
>
> 1. Fedora wiki suggests to use #!/usr/bin/ruby and #!/usr/bin/python
> 2. You don't want to get different behaviour/errors from your system tools
> when you are in a virtualenv (or ruby equivalent)
>
> I think that env is fine for upstream code and bad for system packages.
> There are a lot of spec file replacing shebangs using env.
While your both points are valid, we typically don't change the shebangs in
rubygems.
The thing is that the executable, which is installed into /usr/bin has always
the /usr/bin/ruby shebang, since this is generated file. There is just minimal
chance, that the files which goes into %{gem_instdir}, or even files which goes
into %{gem_instdir}/bin will be executed directly by user, so there is no real
reason to change the shebangs IMO (unless you want to avoid the Requires:
/usr/bin/env autogenerated by RPM, but in that case, it might be better to
filter this autogenerated Requires ...)
--
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Fabio Alessandro Locati changed: What|Removed |Added CC||germano.massu...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(germano.massullo@ ||gmail.com) --- Comment #8 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- 1. Rebase on 0.19 2. Remove /usr/share/gems/gems/em-proxy-0.1.8/.rspec 3. /usr/share/gems/gems/em-proxy-0.1.8/examples/balancing-client.rb is missing the shabang 4. Use #!/usr/bin/ruby instead of #!/usr/bin/env ruby (thanks Frafra :)) 5. Make sure that the spec file and the SPEC file inside the SRPM are the _SAME_ -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #7 from Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) --- I would suggest to avoid env for Fedora packages for two reasons: 1. Fedora wiki suggests to use #!/usr/bin/ruby and #!/usr/bin/python 2. You don't want to get different behaviour/errors from your system tools when you are in a virtualenv (or ruby equivalent) I think that env is fine for upstream code and bad for system packages. There are a lot of spec file replacing shebangs using env. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo --- (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #5) > @Germano: You _should_ probably rebase this package on 0.1.9 I know but I am waiting for Francesco Frassinelli comment about Ruby shebangs. He claims to be pretty sure about #!/usr/bin/ruby usage -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- @Germano: You _should_ probably rebase this package on 0.1.9 -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #4 from Germano Massullo --- Personal reminder: LICENSE file included in rubygem version 0.1.9 https://github.com/igrigorik/em-proxy/issues/56 -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- @Germano: The result for both is the same, so I would say that it does not really matter. If upstream uses `env ruby` is ok. That phrase compares using ruby vs ruby-mri/jruby -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rubygem-em-proxy|rubygem-em-proxy - ||EventMachine Proxy DSL -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 --- Comment #2 from Germano Massullo --- Should I patch also other Shebangs in source code, as written in Ruby guidelines? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Shebang_lines Example: #!/usr/bin/ruby instead of #!/usr/bin/env ruby -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati ---
Things to fix/improve:
- Include the LICENSE file in the package
- Exclude the .rspec folder from the rpm package
- Fix script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gems/gems/em-proxy-0.1.8/examples/balancing-client.rb
- Align file SPEC with SRPM
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
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.
[!]: 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". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/fale/1348160-rubygem-em-
proxy/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[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
= 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 subpack
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Fabio Alessandro Locati changed: What|Removed |Added CC||f...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@redhat.com -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1348005 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348005 [Bug 1348005] Review Request: rubygem-bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
