Bug 728256
Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-activesupport2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Emanuel Rietveld <codehotter> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | guillermo.gomez, notting, package-review | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | guillermo.gomez:
fedora-review+
gwync: 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: | 2012-01-06 16:26:43 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: | 726690, 728249, 728255 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Emanuel Rietveld
2011-08-04 14:09:12 UTC
According my deps this the first pkg to review, i will take it and find sponshorship for u if possible. Created attachment 517615 [details] rpmlint output Pushed new package to replace incorrect Rakefile version in .src.rpm. Full rpmlint output (233 warnings) attached. There are many warnings related to 'unexpanded macro' which are actually escaped characters, like %3f, in the filenames of the ri documentation. The previous version of the package, activesupport-2.3.8 in F14, had these warnings as well. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm | grep -v unexpanded-macro rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/failover-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/namespace-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/end_transition-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/logger-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/timeout-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/host-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/retry-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/no_reply-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/port-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/multithread-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/weight-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/cache.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/Server/status-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/offset-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/TZInfo/TimezonePeriod/start_transition-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/MemCache/servers-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activesupport-2.3.12/ri/ActiveSupport/CoreExtensions/Numeric/Time/since-i.ri rubygem-activesupport2.3.src: W: invalid-url Source2: activesupport-23-tests.tgz rubygem-activesupport2.3.src: W: file-size-mismatch Rakefile = 5371, https://raw.github.com/rails/rails/v2.3.12/activesupport/Rakefile = 1 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 233 warnings. If ignoring the unexpanded-macro warnings of the ri documentation, there are several warnings left. First a list of 'wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding'. I am reluctant to fix these, because stripping \r from actionpack files has been known to break rails before - see comment of mmorsi in that spec file. Besides, the files are not plain text files, but binary documentation files. It is unclear what the effect of stripping \r characters out of a binary file will be. Of course, I am open to a difference of opinion. Next one, invalid-url, is to be expected. For some reason the tests are not packaged in the upstream source gem, so the activesupport-23-tests.tgz source is created from git. The procedure for reproducing activesupport-23-tests.tgz is documented in the spec file. Finally, however, I do not understand the file-size-mismatch at all. curl -O https://raw.github.com/rails/rails/v2.3.12/activesupport/Rakefile results in a file with size of 5371 which is in every respect identical to the file in the source rpm. What is rpmlint complaining about here? Cant find the srpm file, could you please refresh the links? (apologies for the delay) Guillermo Tar gz of everything in my rails23 repo, most recent commit: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=snapshot;h=rails23;sf=tgz Direct link to current source rpm: http://xls01.freecult.org/pkg/?p=pkg.git;a=blob_plain;f=SRPMS/rubygem-activesupport2.3-2.3.14-1.fc15.src.rpm;h=rails23 I do like keeping my packaging work in git, but I still need to get some more userfriendly interface. Thanks Emanuel Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated [x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. NOTE: not a blocker, but i would suggest to get rid of the epoch field. Its not needed and would simply naming the package (this is a brand new package, please adjust changelog if done) [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] : 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 is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [-] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict. [-] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [-] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock/koji. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: test passes 100% in koji but some tests fails in my station, there has to be some test dependencies hiden. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Toshio, i think this one is clean enough in order to sponsor Emanuel. APPROVED Thank you Guillermo. I have removed the Epoch field and updated the changelog. Can you please give me more information about the failing tests? Which tests fail? They all pass on my workstation in Mock. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-activesupport2.3 Short Description: Support and utility classes used by the Rails 2.3 framework Owners: codehotter Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Built successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=281645 rubygem-activesupport2.3-2.3.14-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-activesupport2.3-2.3.14-1.fc16 |