Bug 569198

Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Adrian Joian <adrian.joian>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, mtasaka, notting, sgupta
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-21 12:52:21 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Adrian Joian 2010-02-28 12:32:23 EST
Spec URL: http://ajoian.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-rmail.spec
SRPM URL: http://ajoian.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-rmail-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: RMail is a lightweight mail library containing various utility classes and modules that allow ruby scripts to parse, modify, and generate MIME mail messages.

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.
Comment 1 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-04-05 13:30:13 EDT
! Notes
  - Please be familiar with rpmlint (available in "rpmlint" binary
    rpm) and check your srpm / rebuilt binary rpm / installed rpm
    with rpmlint.

Some initial comments

* spec file name
  - The name of this spec file must be "rubygem-rmail.spec"
    ( see: $ rpmlint -I invalid-spec-name )

* %define -> %global
  - We now prefer to use %global instead of %define:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

* Group
  - We usually choose "Development/Languages" for rubygem related packages.

* License
  - This package is under "BSD"

* Requires/BuildRequires fix
--------------------------------------------------------------
    16  Requires: rubygems
    17  BuildRequires: ruby(rubygems)
    33  Requires:ruby(rubygems)
--------------------------------------------------------------
  - You use both "rubygems" and "ruby(rubygems)" (Build)Requires. Please
    choose one style ( note that "BuildRequires: rubygem(rake)" should
    be as it is )

--------------------------------------------------------------
    23  %package -n ruby-%{gemname}
    27  Provides: ruby(%{gemname})=  %{version}-%{release}
--------------------------------------------------------------
  - With this line ruby-rmail has "Provides: ruby(rmail)=" and
    "Provides: 1.0.0-1.fc??" and this is not expected.
    ( see: $ rpmlint -I comparison-operator-in-deptoken )

? non-gem compatibility package
  - Would you explain why non-gem compatibility package is needed for this
    package?

* Directory ownership issue
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Forgetting_to_Include_a_Toplevel_Directory

  - The following directories themselves are not owned by any packages:
---------------------------------------------------------------
%{geminstdir}
%{geminstdir}/lib
---------------------------------------------------------------

* script without executable permission including shebang
---------------------------------------------------------------
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/runtests.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/testtestbase.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/testmboxreader.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-rmail-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmail-1.0.0/test/testmessage.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env
...
...
---------------------------------------------------------------
  - These scripts need not have shebangs.
Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-04-16 13:12:38 EDT
ping?
Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-04-29 13:08:44 EDT
ping again?
Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-05-08 02:16:49 EDT
I will close this bug if no response is received from the reporter
within ONE WEEK.
Comment 5 Mamoru TASAKA 2010-05-21 12:52:21 EDT
Once closing.

If someone wants to import this package into Fedora, please submit
a new review request and mark this bug as a duplicate of the
new one, thank you!
Comment 6 Shreyank Gupta 2010-05-31 10:32:05 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 588461 ***
Comment 7 Shreyank Gupta 2010-05-31 10:34:36 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 598138 ***