Bug 504468

Note for reviewer: feel free to review this (I'll be thankful), but please do not approve it yet; it is pending resolution of a licensing issue (see SPEC file for details).

Attempted to incorporate comments from here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504469#c1

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SPECS/rubygem-treetop.spec
SRPM:
http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SRPMS/rubygem-treetop-1.2.5-2.fc11.src.rpm

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SPECS/rubygem-treetop.spec
SRPM:
http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SRPMS/rubygem-treetop-1.2.5-3.fc11.src.rpm

btw, the licensing issues have been solved; see the spec file.

1] so if the issue with license is resolved, do you need following comments ?
# Need to chceck validity of this
# http://github.com/blambeau/treetop/blob/cee97973983ab73058ecd1e5a6345e4a9108a811/LICENCE
# Mail was sent

2] complaining rpmlint, however this looks more like file which was not deleted by upstream...seems for me that this file doesn't have any function.
I guess removing this will corrupt gem.

rubygem-treetop.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.2.5/examples/lambda_calculus/lambda_calculus

3] new version was released by upstream (1.2.6) which have non-empty in doc directory

ping?

Thanks for the review'n'CVS. Imported and build.

whoops, sorry, wrong bug.

(In reply to comment #5)
> 1] so if the issue with license is resolved, do you need following comments ?

Right. Removed.

> 2] complaining rpmlint, however this looks more like file which was not deleted
> by upstream...seems for me that this file doesn't have any function.
> I guess removing this will corrupt gem.

Right.

> 3] new version was released by upstream (1.2.6) which have non-empty in doc
> directory

Updated.

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SPECS/rubygem-treetop.spec
SRPM:
http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SRPMS/rubygem-treetop-1.3.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
- Ok

The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- Ok

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
- ok

The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- ok, meets packaging and ruby specific guidelines

The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
- ok

The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
- ok

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

The spec file must be written in American English.
- ok

The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- ok

The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
- ok

The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
- ok

ExcludeArch present.
- ok, no excludearch

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
- ok

The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- ok

Ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- ok, not needed

Relocatable package and /usr prefix.
- ok, not relocatable

A package must own all directories that it creates.
- ok

A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
- ok

Permissions on files must be set properly.
- ok

Each package must have a correct %clean section.
- ok

Each package must consistently use macros.
- ok

The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- ok

Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- ok

If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
- ok

Header files must be in a -devel package.
- ok, no header

Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- ok, no static

Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' .
- ok, no .pc

Library with .so suffix must be in -devel package.
- ok, no .so library

In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- ok, no devel

Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
- ok, no .la

Gui application and desktop-file-install.
- ok, no gui

Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
- ok

At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- ok

All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- ok

conclusion: Approved

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-treetop
Short Description: A Ruby-based text parsing and interpretation DSL
Owners: lkundrak
Branches: F-11 EL-5

cvs done.

Thank you!

Imported and built.