[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-08-08 04:24:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2byUvW3miwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991
Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
After above explanation, package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
sprockets-rails-doc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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. 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/axil/review/986991-rubygem-sprockets-
rails/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Thank you. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-sprockets-rails Short Description: Sprockets Rails integration Owners: jstribny Branches: InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DF6rlxbVgVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PlukFLOWzOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 --- Comment #8 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mzZQq5jgZWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 --- Comment #5 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Yes, it is, and I will try try to wait to build all those dependent packages like this one after I checked that Rails packages works for me locally. I just need to have them prepared. After that, it should be only matter of update of deps and then Rails. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ViCBiAWHDza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991
--- Comment #2 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
Ok, some remarks.
First of all, I would like to see `%build` above `gem build
%{gem_name}.gemspec`. I know it doesn't mean much for gems, but I like the
consistency :)
Second, I couldn't get it to build locally on mock (rawhide) because of rack's
version. In particular:
Error: Package: 1:rubygem-actionpack-3.2.13-2.fc20.noarch (fedora)
Requires: rubygem(rack) 1.5
Available: 1:rubygem-rack-1.5.2-1.fc20.noarch (fedora)
rubygem(rack) = 1.5.2
It seems in the koji build you provided it installed rack-1.4.5-3 from f19 [0],
which is in accordance with actionpack's Requires.
I asked in #devel and I was told that building for rawhide **might** include
some F19 packages, if these packages were last built before F19 branched out of
Rawhide (i.e when Rawhide actually was F19).
As I see it, the only way to build for rawhide is to loosen the rack dependency
of actionpack [1].
Nevertheless, I tested it for f19 and it builds fine, rpmlint gives no errors
and it installs and loads fine in irb.
How do you want to proceed?
[0] http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9800/5639800/root.log
[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rubygem-actionpack.git/tree/rubygem-actionpack.spec#n38
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BIBLoZeXyLa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Hi, it's actually my fault, because I broken up rawhide by updating rack too soon (so now old Rails 3.0 is unfortunately broken and it's not yet replaced by 4.0), I tested this package before it happened which you can see above in the old koji link. I will have to build it without running the tests and enable them after I finish Rails 4. As for the %build, I changed it. Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-sprockets-rails.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3173/5683173/rubygem-sprockets-rails-2.0.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683171 Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9E7v3pAr1sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 --- Comment #4 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr --- Ok, now it makes sense. But again, actionpack should be updated first, no? Without a version bump (3.2.13-4.0.0), sprockets-rails still Requires rack = 1.5 and although it is built fine it cannot be installed. Is the update of actionpack scheduled anytime soon? If yes, I guess we can push sprockets-rails to rawhide now. Let me know if that's the case, I have the review ready. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bLWqT9T2Uha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||axill...@archlinux.gr Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|axill...@archlinux.gr Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr --- I'll take this for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OXJzQw2gOfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
