[Bug 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 --- Comment #6 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 10:27:09 EDT --- Updated SPEC: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-image_factory_console.spec Updated SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-image_factory_console-0.4.0-3.fc15.src.rpm (In reply to comment #5) Also, there's a thread on aeolus-devel: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/aeolus-devel/2011-July/003247.html Looks like we're going to change the name of gem to 'imagefactory-console' Will update this submission when the patches doing so have been ack'd/pushed (In reply to comment #4) FWIW, I just noticed ruby_sitelib is unused Ah good catch, removed -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 11:12:23 EDT --- These patches are now in the repository, so we should be good to rename the RPM and get this package in. -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 --- Comment #8 from Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com 2011-07-20 11:17:18 EDT --- Well, there hasn't been an official upstream release to package yet - I'd wait until tomorrow for that -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 --- Comment #5 from Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com 2011-07-19 13:07:09 EDT --- Also, there's a thread on aeolus-devel: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/aeolus-devel/2011-July/003247.html Looks like we're going to change the name of gem to 'imagefactory-console' -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mar...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com 2011-07-18 11:14:13 EDT --- FWIW, I just noticed ruby_sitelib is unused -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-15 09:52:19 EDT --- Also here is the koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3201285 -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com 2011-07-15 09:51:38 EDT --- Spec: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-image_factory_console.spec SRPM: http://mo.morsi.org/files/aeolus/rubygem-image_factory_console-0.4.0-2.fc15.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) Initial review: 1) There is no COPYING or LICENSE file in the sources. We should fix that in the upstream aeolus repository, to make it clear what license this particular piece of code is under. Agreed, though from the Fedora submission perspective, not a blocker. 2) Even if we take the GPLv2+ as the license (which is what the rest of the conductor is under), the license listed in the SPEC is wrong. It says GPLv2+ or Ruby, which is not true; it is just GPLv2+ Done 3) No need for a BuildRoot anymore (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag) Done 4) No need for a %clean section anymore (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) Done 5) No need for %defattr in %files (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions) Done 6) We probably want to make the Requires: rubygems and BuildRequires: rubygems into Requires: ruby(rubygems) and BuildRequires: ruby(rubygems), respectively. Hrm, why? The guidelines state The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems [ FAIL ] 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 - clalance: this is a bit problematic in that we don't have releases separate from the main conductor code. We should probably follow the recommendations in the SourceURL link above and put a comment in describing how to generate the gem. Done [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license Done -- 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 721066] Review Request: rubygem-image_factory_console - QMF Console for Aeolus Image Factory
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=721066
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?
--- Comment #1 from Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com 2011-07-14 09:38:56
EDT ---
Initial review:
1) There is no COPYING or LICENSE file in the sources. We should fix that in
the upstream aeolus repository, to make it clear what license this particular
piece of code is under.
2) Even if we take the GPLv2+ as the license (which is what the rest of the
conductor is under), the license listed in the SPEC is wrong. It says GPLv2+
or Ruby, which is not true; it is just GPLv2+
3) No need for a BuildRoot anymore
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag)
4) No need for a %clean section anymore
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean)
5) No need for %defattr in %files
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions)
6) We probably want to make the Requires: rubygems and BuildRequires: rubygems
into Requires: ruby(rubygems) and BuildRequires: ruby(rubygems), respectively.
[ 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} [...]
[ FAIL ] 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 - clalance: this is a bit
problematic in that we don't have releases separate from the main conductor
code. We should probably follow the recommendations in the SourceURL link
above and put a comment in describing how to generate the gem.
[ 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
