[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2016-10-11 06:28:19 --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch --- This does not look to be alive. The missing dependency review was already closed long ago => closing this as well. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560 Vít Ondruch 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560 --- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560 --- Comment #7 from Guillermo Gómez 2012-02-22 06:00:45 EST --- Missing dep BZ filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796112 -- 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560
Guillermo Gómez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(guillermo.gomez@g |
|mail.com) |
--- Comment #6 from Guillermo Gómez 2012-02-01
20:25:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Review summary:
>
> - Missing dependency rubygem(tidy_ffi) ?
> - I'm not sure if you are following packaging guidelines with regards to
> version constrains on the gemdeps
> - Package looks OK to me otherwise
>
> Legend
>
> + OK
> - Not Applicable, ignored
> ? Still under Review
>
> [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
> produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
> .
> [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
> [?] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines .
> [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license. [3]
> [+] 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.[4]
> [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
> [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
> [+] 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.
> [?] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
> at least one primary architecture. [7]
> [-] 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. [8]
> [+] 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.
> [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
> the
> %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
> [-] 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. [10]
> [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
> [-] 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. [12]
> [+] 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. [13]
> [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)[14]
> [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. [15]
> [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
> [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
> [+] 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). [18]
> [+] 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. [18]
> [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
> [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
> [-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
> libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
> a -devel package. [19]
> [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %
[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560
--- Comment #5 from Emanuel Rietveld 2012-01-31 11:17:35
EST ---
Review summary:
- Missing dependency rubygem(tidy_ffi) ?
- I'm not sure if you are following packaging guidelines with regards to
version constrains on the gemdeps
- Package looks OK to me otherwise
Legend
+ OK
- Not Applicable, ignored
? Still under Review
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[?] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[+] 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.[4]
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[+] 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.
[?] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[-] 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. [8]
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[-] 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. [10]
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[-] 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. [12]
[+] 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. [13]
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[+] 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). [18]
[+] 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. [18]
[-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]
[-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec f
[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560
--- Comment #4 from Emanuel Rietveld 2012-01-31 11:16:35
EST ---
According to Ruby Packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems
- For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a
Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem.
You do not have version constraints on your Requires.
Here is similar language from the draft packaging guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby
- For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a
Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}). Packager must ensure that the package works
properly with its specified dependencies. Please note, that Fedora may carry
different versions of Gems than those specified in Gem specification, therefore
the versions required in specfile may not match the dependencies in Gem
specification exactly. In that case, the Gem specification (.gemspec) file must
be adjusted accordingly.
--
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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||codehot...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(guillermo.gomez@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #3 from Emanuel Rietveld 2012-01-31 10:53:01 EST --- I'll take this one. Two questions about dependencies. 1) Version 1.6.1 has the below commit bumping rdoc dependency to 3.9 from 3.3. The commit message does not say why. The latest version in fedora is 3.8. Are you sure 3.8 also fulfills the dependency? http://bogomips.org/wrongdoc.git/commit/?id=33c794a884a65d1dceff17e6ec5729b8538f20b6 2) Your spec lists Requires: rubygem(tidy_ffi) but I cannot find any package fedora that Provides this. Can you help me find it? -- 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|codehot...@gmail.com -- 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560 --- Comment #2 from Guillermo Gómez 2012-01-31 10:04:58 EST --- Required rubygem(nokogiri) pushed today to stable repos. -- 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
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=785560 --- Comment #1 from Guillermo Gómez 2012-01-29 10:44:23 EST --- Required rubygem(nokogiri) version available in updates-testing ! -- 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
