Bug 472819
Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-rufus-scheduler - Scheduler for Ruby (at, cron and every jobs) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, susi.lehtola, tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | susi.lehtola:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-05-01 20:55:53 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 476530 |
Description
Darryl L. Pierce
2008-11-24 20:34:13 UTC
Follow up to the request. It's been over a week without any response to my review request. I hope you realize that there are over 700 review requests in the queue, and that while they will all receive attention eventually, one week including a major US holiday is a bit of an ask. New version of the GEM was released today, so the SRPM and spec are updated now: Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler-1.0.12-1.fc10.src.rpm New version of the gem was released today, so the SRPM and spec have been updated: Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler-1.0.13-1.fc10.src.rpm - I don't know if this is normal for ruby gems, but you're using a non-standard documentation location: %doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version} %doc %{geminstdir}/README.txt %doc %{geminstdir}/CHANGELOG.txt %doc %{geminstdir}/CREDITS.txt Please fix this, for example by adding %setup -c -T and after the install: mkdir doc/ mv %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version} %{geminstdir}/README.txt \ %{geminstdir}/CHANGELOG.txt %{geminstdir}/CREDITS.txt doc/ Then your %doc section should be just %doc doc/* - The line Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 is missing. Please add this. [ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines ] - You can probably drop the %define ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e "puts Config::CONFIG['sitelibdir']") since you're not using it anywhere. --- rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. 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 be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK (In reply to comment #5) > - I don't know if this is normal for ruby gems, but you're using a non-standard > documentation location: That's a standard location for Ruby gems: (mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:~)$ ls /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/ actionmailer-2.1.1 activeresource-2.1.1 daemons-1.0.7 gruff-0.3.4 rake-0.8.4 rufus-scheduler-1.0.13 actionpack-2.1.1 activesupport-2.1.1 fastthread-1.0.1 hoe-1.12.1 RedCloth-4.1.9 tlsmail-0.0.1 activerecord-2.1.1 cgi_multipart_eof_fix-2.3 gem_plugin-0.2.3 mongrel-1.0.1 rubyforge-1.0.3 Maybe the Ruby packaging guidelines should add a guideline for this? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Build_Architecture_and_File_Placement > - The line > Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 > is missing. Please add this. [ > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines ] Fixed. > > - You can probably drop the > %define ruby_sitelib %(ruby -rrbconfig -e "puts Config::CONFIG['sitelibdir']") > since you're not using it anywhere. Removed. > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX Fixed. LICENSE.txt is in the RPM but I didn't note it as a doc. Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-rufus-scheduler-1.0.13-2.fc10.src.rpm (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > - I don't know if this is normal for ruby gems, but you're using a non-standard > > documentation location: > > That's a standard location for Ruby gems: OK, in that case. > Maybe the Ruby packaging guidelines should add a guideline for this? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Build_Architecture_and_File_Placement Indeed. ** The package has been APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rufus-scheduler Short Description: Scheduler for Ruby Owners: mcpierce Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 InitialCC: cvs done. |