Bug 569198
| Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-rmail - A MIME mail parsing and generation library | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adrian Joian <adrian.joian> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | 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: | rawhide | CC: | 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 16:52:21 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: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Adrian Joian
2010-02-28 17:32:23 UTC
! 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.
ping? ping again? I will close this bug if no response is received from the reporter within ONE WEEK. 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! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 588461 *** *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 598138 *** |