Bug 504469
Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-term-ansicolor - Ruby library that colors strings using ANSI escape sequences | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mtasaka, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
j: 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: | 2009-07-01 14:20:12 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: | 504479, 507761 |
Description
Lubomir Rintel
2009-06-07 11:44:23 UTC
Some basic comments (please also consider to apply the following comments to the rest of your rubygem related review requests). - Use %global instead of %define: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Pure_Ruby_packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define - Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines And for consistency I recommend to add BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 - As you have already defined %geminstdir, please use it also at %files and so on - %geminstdir/[A-Z]* should be marked as %doc - Please check if Rakefile or install.rb are needed for binary rpm. --------------------------------------------------------------------- # Examples are documentation mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/examples \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version} --------------------------------------------------------------------- - Note that --------------------------------------------------------------------- $ gem contents term-ansicolor --------------------------------------------------------------------- expects that examples/ directory should be under %geminstdir. While we allow (don't forbid) to delete some files listed in "$ gem contents <gemname>") if packagers think they are not needed, I don't think moving examples/ directory under %gemdir/doc is needed. Thanks for picking this up (In reply to comment #1) > Some basic comments (please also consider to apply the following > comments to the rest of your rubygem related review requests). > > - Use %global instead of %define: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Pure_Ruby_packages > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define > > - Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 is missing > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines > And for consistency I recommend to add > BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 > > - As you have already defined %geminstdir, please use it also at > %files and so on > > - %geminstdir/[A-Z]* should be marked as %doc Will fix. These four (and maybe others) will be common for most other rubygem packages I have submitted today. I'm wondering if it would make sense if I copied this to other reviews; or what can I do to prevent duplicate reviewer work. Also, this was all generated by gem2rpm, we probably should fix the tool as well. > - Please check if Rakefile or install.rb are needed for binary rpm. Will do. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > # Examples are documentation > mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/examples \ > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version} > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - Note that > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > $ gem contents term-ansicolor > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > expects that examples/ directory should be under %geminstdir. > While we allow (don't forbid) to delete some files listed in > "$ gem contents <gemname>") if packagers think they are not needed, > I don't think moving examples/ directory under %gemdir/doc is > needed. Will revert. This applies to more packages I submitted today as well. (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for picking this up > > (In reply to comment #1) > > Some basic comments (please also consider to apply the following > > comments to the rest of your rubygem related review requests). > > <snip> > > Will fix. These four (and maybe others) will be common for most other rubygem > packages I have submitted today. I'm wondering if it would make sense if I > copied this to other reviews; or what can I do to prevent duplicate reviewer > work. I think you can just modify your rest srpm and don't have to copy my comments. (In reply to comment #1) > - Please check if Rakefile or install.rb are needed for binary rpm. See below. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > $ gem contents term-ansicolor > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > expects that examples/ directory should be under %geminstdir. > While we allow (don't forbid) to delete some files listed in > "$ gem contents <gemname>") if packagers think they are not needed, > I don't think moving examples/ directory under %gemdir/doc is > needed. I adjusted all the packages to contain all the files "gem contents" list (reverted the deletes). I feel that it should always be consistent with the actual contents and don't think it's worth patching the lists for any of the files I used to remove. SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SPECS/rubygem-term-ansicolor.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SRPMS/rubygem-term-ansicolor-1.0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm Well, - Now build.log complains: ------------------------------------------------------------- 68 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/CHANGES 69 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/GPL 70 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/README.en 71 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/VERSION -------------------------------------------------------------- And as you did so before %geminstdir/examples should be marked as %doc. So %files should be: -------------------------------------------------------------- %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %dir %{geminstdir} %doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]* %doc %{geminstdir}/examples/ %{geminstdir}/*.rb %{geminstdir}/lib/ %doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec --------------------------------------------------------------- thoughts? (In reply to comment #5) > Well, > - Now build.log complains: > ------------------------------------------------------------- > 68 warning: File listed twice: > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/CHANGES > 69 warning: File listed twice: > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/GPL > 70 warning: File listed twice: > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/README.en > 71 warning: File listed twice: > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/term-ansicolor-1.0.3/VERSION > -------------------------------------------------------------- I am aware of this and believe that it is ok. Makes no real harm and saves me from enumerating the contents of the directory just to avoid duplicate listings. > And as you did so before %geminstdir/examples should be marked as > %doc. Will fix (for other packages as well). > So %files should be: > -------------------------------------------------------------- > %files > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > > %dir %{geminstdir} > %doc %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]* > %doc %{geminstdir}/examples/ > %{geminstdir}/*.rb > %{geminstdir}/lib/ > > %doc %{gemdir}/doc/%{gemname}-%{version}/ > %{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem > %{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec > --------------------------------------------------------------- > thoughts? I can do this (and for other packages as well) if you insist on eliminate of "listed twice" warning but I'll prefer not to. Well, I suggest to remove duplicate %files entry as - Actually it is MUST ;) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#cite_ref-12 - And I am not sure if in this case rpmbuild marks these duplicated files as %doc or normal files. I actually checked the rebuilt binary rpm and it seems that %{geminstdir}/[A-Z]* are marked as %doc, however I don't know any references. ping? ping again? Sorry, Mamoru; I've been quite busy with rest of $daywork these day (which is quite a bad excuse for not responding). I've integrated your suggestions: SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SPECS/rubygem-term-ansicolor.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/gdc-ruby-stack/SRPMS/rubygem-term-ansicolor-1.0.3-3.fc11.src.rpm ----------------------------------------------------------------- This package (rubygem-term-ansicolor) is APPROVED by mtasaka ----------------------------------------------------------------- Much thanks! I'm currently in the process of fixing the duplicate file listing in other rubygem packages as well. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-term-ansicolor Short Description: Ruby library that colors strings using ANSI escape sequences Owners: hpejakle lkundrak Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 CVS done. Not applied to this package, however some notes: - If rubygem based rpm package contains %{geminstdir}/test , would you try to add %check section and execute some test program like below? http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-hpricot/devel/rubygem-hpricot.spec?view=co https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Gem_expand_stage_change (The latter one is a draft and currently I am waiting from the feedback from any person. If you have time I will appreciate it if you comment on: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-June/msg00069.html ) Closing this one. |