Bug 458139 (ruby-pam)

1. Source0 should be the full path for getting the source package, something like: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ruby-pam/%{name}-%{version}.tgz

2. Source0 should use variables for the version (see above).

I have made the changes per your suggestions. Please re-verify:

pec URL: http://www.thincrust.net/download/rubygem-pam.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.thincrust.net/download/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm
Description: Ruby bindings for pam.

* General

 XX - Package name
 
 The secondary package delivering the binary library should be delivered in a package named "ruby-pam-lib".
   
 XX - License info is accurate
 XX - License tag is correct and licenses are approved
 
The website says LGPL without version.
The spec says LGPLv2+.
The COPYING file in the GEM lists the original authors name with no mention of LGPL.
 
 OK - License files are installed as %doc
 OK - Specfile name
 OK - Specfile is legible
 OK - No prebuilt binaries included
 OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values)
 OK - PreReq not used
 OK - Source md5sum matches upstream
 OK - No hardcoded pathnames
 OK - Package owns all the files it installs
 OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories
 OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock)
 OK - BuildRequires sufficient
 OK - File permissions set properly
 OK - Macro usage is consistent
 OK - rpmlint is silent

* Package a rubygem

 OK - Package is named rubygem-%{gemname}
 XX - Source points to full URL of gem
 
 Source0 is just the filename, not the full URL for downloading the source.
 
 OK - Package version identical with gem version
 XX - Package Requires and BuildRequires rubygems
 
 No "Requires: rubygems" in the spec.
 
 OK - Package provides rubygem(%{gemname}) = %version
 OK - Package requires gem dependencies correctly
 OK - %prep and %build are empty
 OK - %gemdir defined properly, and gem installed into it
 OK - Package owns its directories under %gemdir

** noarch rubygem

 OK - No arch-specific content in %{gemdir}
 OK - Package is noarch

** arch rubygem

 OK - No arch specific content in %{gemdir}
 OK - Defines ruby_sitearch from rbconfig
 OK - arch specific content moved to %{ruby_sitearch}

Synced up license into. Changed the package name to be in line with the Ruby gem packaging stanhdards, added the requires. 


New Spec file is here: http://ruby-pam.rubyforge.org/git?p=ruby-pam.git;a=blob;f=rubygem-pam.spec;

New Source RPM: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/41730/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm

Newest Version.

Ensured valid license and issue with source code / source rpm.

Spec File: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/42936/rubygem-pam.spec
Source RPM: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/42933/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm

There are several warnings reporting by rpmlint on both rubygem-pam and ruby-pam that need to be resolved.

 XX - License tag is correct and licenses are approved

rpmlint is complaining about LGPL as an invalid license.

 XX - Source points to full URL of gem

 Source0 needs to use the %{name}, %{version} and %{release} macros rather than a hard-coded filename.

Also, try running a scratch build locally:

     koji build --scratch local rubygem-pam-1.5.2-2.fc9.src.rpm

and make sure there are no build errors.

* License was changed to LGPLv2+. The source website shows LGPL (which is all I can do) but the LICENS file shows LGPL 2.1

* rpmlint passes on the source rpm, with no warning
* rpmline shows no-documentation and soft-link warnings on the rpms. They install and run fine.
* Source0 now uses the macros
* Builds fine in koji for i386 and x86_64 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=823198)

Please post the updated SPEC and SRPM. I'll test and, if all works, I'll go ahead and approve the package.

sorry... here they are:

SRPM: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/43293/rubygem-pam-1.5.2-3.fc9.src.rpm
SPEC: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/43292/rubygem-pam.spec

-- bk

APPROVED.

There's something not right with this specfile. When I build it, I get a file

  /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pam-1.5.2/lib/pam.so

in the x86_64 RPM; that goes directly against the 'no arch-specific content in %gemdir'

Why is this file even needed ? You already put the versioned .so into %ruby_sitearch, and the ruby-pam RPM puts an unversioned link into %ruby_sitearch

Thank you for the review!

I tested this by removing the link in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/pam-1.5.2/lib/pam.so

and when launching with irb -rubygems I got an error when I attempted to  require pam.

I then modified the library itself to be pam.so instead of pam.1.5.2.so. This allowed the gem to install.... but also allowed this to work

irb -rpam 

with only the gem install which I believe is incorrect. So, if the usage of the softlink in the gem directory to the arch directory is not allowed then I will look to add a single ruby file which loads up the versioned library. This seems like the best solution of meeting the rpm needs and the gem needs. Any concerns with this approach?

I have added a shim layer to the gem which in turn loads _pam which should pick up the libary from the arch load path. I followed the augeas pattern.

As an aside, should this pattern be put into the packaging guidelines?

New Spec File: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-pam-1.5.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
New SRPM: http://bkearney.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-pam.spec

koji build clean
one rpmlint warning for nodoc on ruby-pam (doc is in rugygem-pam)

All is well with me. Approved.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ruby-pam
Short Description: PAM bindings for ruby
Owners: bkearney
Branches: F-9 F10
InitialCC: None

cvs done.

Package Rename CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-pam
Short Description: PAM bindings for ruby
Owners: bkearney
Branches: F-9 F10
InitialCC: None

Sorry...goofed the package name. Should have been rubygem-pam

-- bk

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: ruby-pam
New Branches: None
Owners:  bkearney

The original package name was incorrect. It should be renamed rubygem-pam.

cvs done.