[Bug 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
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=721063 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 10:20:54 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-factory_girl_rails Short Description: provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3 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 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
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=721063 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-07-20 11:49:14 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 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
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=721063 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-07-20 12:08:05 --- Comment #6 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 12:08:05 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 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
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=721063 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-19 15:22:07 EDT --- This looks fine. 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 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
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=721063
--- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-15 09:15:12 EDT ---
Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-factory_girl_rails.spec
SRPM:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-factory_girl_rails-1.0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
(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-factory_girl_rails-1.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
rubygem-factory_girl_rails.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C
factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
We can probably change that summary to Provides integration between
factory_girl and rails 3
Done
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
Done
[ FAIL ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install is no longer needed
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721063 Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||clala...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|clala...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 721063] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl_rails - factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721063
--- Comment #1 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-13 14:58:05
EDT ---
Initial review:
1) There are a few lines in there that have trailing whitespace (like
Requires: ruby); not a huge problem, but nice to clean up.
2) The license is wrong; the spec says GPLv2+ or Ruby (which I know is the
default gem2rpm output), but the actual license of the gem is MIT.
[clalance@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint
rubygem-factory_girl_rails-1.0.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
rubygem-factory_girl_rails.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C
factory_girl_rails provides integration between factory_girl and rails 3
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
We can probably change that summary to Provides integration between
factory_girl and rails 3
[ 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 create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
