[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-sass New Branches: epel7 Owners: lkundrak Fedora maintainers either did not respond when asked to maintain an epel branch or do not wish to maintain EPEL packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo -- 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 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 --- Comment #9 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 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 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 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 10:15:56 EDT --- Thank you New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-sass Short Description: A powerful but elegant CSS compiler Owners: mmorsi Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-20 11:48:13 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-20 12:08:14 --- Comment #7 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 12:08:14 EDT --- Pushed and built against rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-19 15:19:46 EDT --- Looks great. This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-14 18:30:47 EDT --- New Spec:http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-sass.spec New SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-sass-3.1.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=324 (In reply to comment #1) Initial review: 1) There are a few lines in there that have trailing whitespace (like Requires: ruby); not a huge problem, but nice to clean up. Done 2) The license is wrong; the spec says GPLv2+ or Ruby (which I know is the default gem2rpm output), but the actual license of the gem is MIT. Done [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-sass-3.1.4-1.fc14.noarch.rpmrubygem-sass.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixins - mixing, mix ins, mix-ins rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/templates/_imported_charset_ibm866.sass rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/import_charset_1_8.css rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/import_charset_ibm866.css rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/css2sass_test.rbc rubygem-sass.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/warn_imported.css rubygem-sass.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/warn.css rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/engine_test.rbc rubygem-sass.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sass-convert rubygem-sass.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sass 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. I think we can ignore the not-utf8 warnings and the no manpage warnings, but we should probably remove the zero-length files. Both the non-utf8 and zero-length files exist that way purposefully as they are used by the test suite. Removing them causes errors when running the tests so leaving them as is. [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license Fixed. [ FAIL ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install is no longer needed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-14 18:32:25 EDT --- Sorry that updated SRPM should be: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-sass-3.1.4-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clala...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|clala...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721057] Review Request: rubygem-sass - A powerful but elegant CSS compiler that makes CSS fun again
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721057 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-13 13:46:28 EDT --- Initial review: 1) There are a few lines in there that have trailing whitespace (like Requires: ruby); not a huge problem, but nice to clean up. 2) The license is wrong; the spec says GPLv2+ or Ruby (which I know is the default gem2rpm output), but the actual license of the gem is MIT. [clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint rubygem-sass-3.1.4-1.fc14.noarch.rpmrubygem-sass.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixins - mixing, mix ins, mix-ins rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/templates/_imported_charset_ibm866.sass rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/import_charset_1_8.css rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/import_charset_ibm866.css rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/css2sass_test.rbc rubygem-sass.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/warn_imported.css rubygem-sass.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/results/warn.css rubygem-sass.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/sass-3.1.4/test/sass/engine_test.rbc rubygem-sass.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sass-convert rubygem-sass.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sass 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. I think we can ignore the not-utf8 warnings and the no manpage warnings, but we should probably remove the zero-length files. [ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Gems http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ OK ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not