Bug 688315

Based on review comments from BZ 688316, I've updated the spec file to use the released gem instead of the git version.  The new SPEC and SRPM are here:

http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-little-plugger/rubygem-little-plugger.spec
http://people.redhat.com/clalance/rubygem-little-plugger/rubygem-little-plugger-1.1.2-2.fc14.src.rpm

Thanks,
Chris Lalancette

Well, it looks like webby is unmaintained upstream.  Combine this with the fact that we are going to switch the aeolus infrastructure over to using nanoc, and I think there isn't really a good reason to put this in Fedora.  Since this was going to be put in as a dependency for webby, I don't see a need for it anymore.

Closing this review request out.

Oops, it turns out we need this for the rubygem-logging gem that was pulled in.  So I'm re-opening.  I've also updated the RPM to take into account some of the new Fedora guidelines; the spec and SRPM are in the same place as in comment #1.

Chris Lalancette

[  OK  ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
[  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} [...]
[  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

Possible fail, use of %define, guidelines say use of %global is preferred. (Did gem2rpm do this?) Ruby packaging guidelines seem to be not applicable to gems; is that correct?

[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
         and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
         actual license

Spec says GPLV2+ or Ruby. README.rdoc in the gem->data.tar.gz says MIT. 

N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are 1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.

[  OK  ] MUST: 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  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
         source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
         this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
         please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
         rpms on at least one primary architecture
[  N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on 
         an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the 
         spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST 
         have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 
         does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 
         be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[  OK  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 
         for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 
         Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 
         common sense.
[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
         using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
         forbidden
[  N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 
         library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 
         default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must 
         state this fact in the request for review, along with the 
         rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without 
         this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[  OK  ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does 
         not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package 
         which does create that directory.
[  OK  ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
         listing.
[ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively. (Is this another gem2rpm bug?)

[  OK  ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[  OK  ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The 
         definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but 
         is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or 
         quantity).
[  OK  ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the 
         runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the 
         program must run properly if it is not present.
[  N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[  N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: 
         pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
[  N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. 
         libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 
         must go in a -devel package.
[  N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 
         base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
         %{version}-%{release}
[  N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 
         be removed in the spec if they are built.
[  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
         %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with 
         desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your 
         packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put 
         a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[  OK  ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by 
         other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to 
         be installed should own the files or directories that other packages 
         may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora 
         should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories 
         owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a 
         good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, 
         then please present that at package review time.
[  OK  ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
         %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[  OK  ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[  ?   ] SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
        should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
        available.
[  OK  ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

x86-64 and i386 tested.

[ SKIP ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
        supported architectures.
[ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
        described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
        example.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
        vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
        package using a fully versioned dependency.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
        usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be
        placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg
        itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or
        gdb.
[  N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
        /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
        provides the file instead of the file itself.
[      ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
        it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]

Flags: fedora-review, changing to a '+' (as per clalance) is not an option. ???

(In reply to comment #4)
> [  OK  ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
> [  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} [...]
> [  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
> 
> Possible fail, use of %define, guidelines say use of %global is preferred. (Did
> gem2rpm do this?) Ruby packaging guidelines seem to be not applicable to gems;
> is that correct?

Right, I didn't know about that guideline.  I'll update it.  And yes, gem2rpm did do the %define.  I think we really need to update gem2rpm to conform to some of these new requirements, but -ENOTIME.

> 
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
>          and meet the Licensing Guidelines
> [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the 
>          actual license
> 
> Spec says GPLV2+ or Ruby. README.rdoc in the gem->data.tar.gz says MIT. 

Yep, good catch.  Fixed.

> 
> N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are
> 1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.

Hm, odd.  On my system, both the SRPM and the gem file both have valid timestamps.  I wonder what the deal there is.

> 
> [  OK  ] MUST: 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  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
>          source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
>          this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
>          please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary 
>          rpms on at least one primary architecture
> [  N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on 
>          an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the 
>          spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST 
>          have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 
>          does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 
>          be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
> [  OK  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 
>          for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 
>          Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 
>          common sense.
> [  OK  ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 
>          using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 
>          forbidden
> [  N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 
>          library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 
>          default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
> [  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must 
>          state this fact in the request for review, along with the 
>          rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without 
>          this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
> [  OK  ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does 
>          not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package 
>          which does create that directory.
> [  OK  ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files 
>          listing.
> [ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
> 
> use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively.
> (Is this another gem2rpm bug?)

Hm.  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says:

"Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is acceptable."

I left the rm, mkdir, and cp as-is based on that.

> 
> [  OK  ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> [  OK  ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The 
>          definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but 
>          is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or 
>          quantity).
> [  OK  ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the 
>          runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the 
>          program must run properly if it is not present.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: 
>          pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
> [  N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. 
>          libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 
>          must go in a -devel package.
> [  N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 
>          base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
>          %{version}-%{release}
> [  N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 
>          be removed in the spec if they are built.
> [  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
>          %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with 
>          desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your 
>          packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put 
>          a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
> [  OK  ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by 
>          other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to 
>          be installed should own the files or directories that other packages 
>          may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora 
>          should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories 
>          owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a 
>          good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, 
>          then please present that at package review time.
> [  OK  ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
>          %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
> [  OK  ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
> [  ?   ] SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
>         should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
>         available.
> [  OK  ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> 
> x86-64 and i386 tested.
> 
> [ SKIP ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
>         supported architectures.
> [ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
>         described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
>         example.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
>         vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
>         package using a fully versioned dependency.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
>         usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be
>         placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg
>         itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or
>         gdb.
> [  N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
>         /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
>         provides the file instead of the file itself.
> [      ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
>         it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]

I think the rest is fine.  I've uploaded new versions of the package to the same place as the initial comment.  Can you take a look?  Once you are satisfied, the next step would be to change the fedora-review flag to +, but it seems like you are having trouble doing that.  I would recommend emailing the bugzilla maintainers (bugzilla-owner, I think) to see what the deal is.

Thanks for the review,
Chris Lalancette

>> N.B. file timestamps in the gem (tar file) and the embedded data.tar.gz are
>> 1969-12-31. Tar on my f14 box is silent, tar on my f15 box whines.
>
>Hm, odd.  On my system, both the SRPM and the gem file both have valid
>timestamps.  I wonder what the deal there is.

Not the SRPM and gem, the files in the gem. If you untar the gem -- the data.tar.gz and metadata.gz files have 1969-12-31 dates. And then if you untar data.tar.gz, the files it contains have those same dates. Maybe it's not an issue -- I noticed it when I unpacked the gem to check the license.

>> use %{_mkdir}, %{_cp}, and %{_rm} instead of mkdir, cp, and rm respectively.
>> (Is this another gem2rpm bug?)
>
> Hm.  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says:
>
> "Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a
> need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For
> example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is
> acceptable."
>
> I left the rm, mkdir, and cp as-is based on that.

I missed that in the guidelines. On that basis I'm fine with it. I'll recheck the new one shortly.

New spec file looks good.

Thanks again!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-little-plugger
Short Description: gem based plugin management
Owners: clalance
Branches:
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).