Bug 975339

I'll take this for a review.

* Test suite
  - Is there any feasible way how to run a test suite of this package?

* License should be included in main package
  - Please move "%doc %{gem_instdir}/COPYING" into the main package [1].

* Do not mark everything in -doc subpackage by %doc macro
  - examples, test and Rakefile should not be marked as %doc, since they are
    not documentation IMO

* rpmlint
  - There used to be bug in gem2rpm which results in this warning:

    ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:48: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir

    Please escape the macro
  - There is useless line commented out which produces following rpmlint
    warnings:

    ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
    ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir}
    ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_name}
    ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
    ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_spec}

    Please remove this line.
  
Otherwise, the package look quite OK. Please fix the issues so I can approve it. Thanks.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2)
> * Test suite
>   - Is there any feasible way how to run a test suite of this package?

I don't think so. The setup needed would be pretty complex (you need Kerberos server and stuff).

> * License should be included in main package
>   - Please move "%doc %{gem_instdir}/COPYING" into the main package [1].

Fixed.

> * Do not mark everything in -doc subpackage by %doc macro
>   - examples, test and Rakefile should not be marked as %doc, since they are
>     not documentation IMO

Fixed.

> * rpmlint
>   - There used to be bug in gem2rpm which results in this warning:
> 
>     ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:48: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir
> 
>     Please escape the macro
>   - There is useless line commented out which produces following rpmlint
>     warnings:
> 
>     ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
>     ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir}
>     ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_name}
>     ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
>     ./rubygem-gssapi.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_spec}
> 
>     Please remove this line.

Fixed.

Patch

--- rubygem-gssapi.spec.2013-06-18	2013-06-18 07:18:10.811000440 +0000
+++ rubygem-gssapi.spec	2013-06-20 12:03:04.267000530 +0000
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
 # Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file
 gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
 
-# %%gem_install compiles any C extensions and installs the gem into ./%gem_dir
+# %%gem_install compiles any C extensions and installs the gem into ./%%gem_dir
 # by default, so that we can move it into the buildroot in %%install
 %gem_install
 
@@ -53,7 +53,6 @@
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
 cp -pa .%{gem_dir}/* \
         %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
-# mv %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec %{buildroot}%{gem_spec}
 rm -f %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec 
 
 
@@ -62,17 +61,17 @@
 %{gem_libdir}
 %exclude %{gem_cache}
 %{gem_spec}
+%doc %{gem_instdir}/COPYING
 
 %files doc
 %doc %{gem_docdir}
 %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.textile
-%doc %{gem_instdir}/COPYING
-%doc %{gem_instdir}/VERSION
-%doc %{gem_instdir}/examples
-%doc %{gem_instdir}/test
-%doc %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
+%{gem_instdir}/VERSION
+%{gem_instdir}/examples
+%{gem_instdir}/test
+%{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
 %doc %{gem_instdir}/preamble
 
 %changelog
-* Mon Jun 17 2013 root - 1.1.2-1
+* Mon Jun 20 2013 Jan Pazdziora - 1.1.2-1
 - Initial package

applied to the .spec file. New .spec file is at

   http://adelton.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-gssapi.spec

and the new .src.rpm is at

   http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3696/5523696/rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

> Otherwise, the package look quite OK. Please fix the issues so I can approve
> it. Thanks.

Thank you.

(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #3)
> (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2)
> > * Test suite
> >   - Is there any feasible way how to run a test suite of this package?
> 
> I don't think so. The setup needed would be pretty complex (you need
> Kerberos server and stuff).

OK, np ... but it would be nice if you could somehow document it in the .spec file, for future reference.

> applied to the .spec file. New .spec file is at

Thanks. I have two additional remarks:

* Wrong changelog format
  - According to [1], I am missing your email in changelog.

* Release bump
  - Although not mandatory, it is nice to bump release for each review cycle.
    It makes easier to check the differences between SRPM of each iteration.

Since these are just minor nits, I APPROVE the package. Nevertheless, please fix the changelog prior importing the package into Fedora (of course no point in bumping release now, but you can make me happier next time ;)


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4)
> 
> * Wrong changelog format
>   - According to [1], I am missing your email in changelog.

Ah, that sad email changelog rule. When will that get dropped?

> * Release bump
>   - Although not mandatory, it is nice to bump release for each review cycle.
>     It makes easier to check the differences between SRPM of each iteration.

Oh, sorry about that.

> Since these are just minor nits, I APPROVE the package. Nevertheless, please
> fix the changelog prior importing the package into Fedora (of course no
> point in bumping release now, but you can make me happier next time ;)

So do you want that changelog changed and retain -1 release or -2 bumped?

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-gssapi
Short Description: A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
Owners: adelton
Branches: f19 el6
InitialCC:

(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #5)
> So do you want that changelog changed and retain -1 release or -2 bumped?

I hope you don't need a review for the changelog change, so no reason to bump the release.

IOW -1 will be just fine.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19

rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.el6

rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Now I realized, that I did not noticed any reference to some gssapi library. Shouldn't be there added "Requires: /usr/lib64/libgssapi_krb5.so.2"? The gem probably cannot work properly without it.

Or may be libgssapi.so, but libgssapi seems to be deprecated, as of today: "Removed package:  libgssapi-0.11-12.fc19", that is how I realized the missing dependencies.

The gem uses libgssapi_krb5.so.2.

The question then is -- is it OK to add

   Requires: krb5-libs

or do I need to add Requires for a particular .so/lib path, in which case the rubygem package would probably need to change from noarch to arch one?

(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #15)
> The gem uses libgssapi_krb5.so.2.
> 
> The question then is -- is it OK to add
> 
>    Requires: krb5-libs

Yes, that is fine.

> or do I need to add Requires for a particular .so/lib path, in which case
> the rubygem package would probably need to change from noarch to arch one?

You are right. There is probably no better was the add dependency on library directly. But I'll ask on fedora-devel just out of curiosity.

Just for a referrence: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/184690.html

rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #15)
> > The gem uses libgssapi_krb5.so.2.
> > 
> > The question then is -- is it OK to add
> > 
> >    Requires: krb5-libs
> 
> Yes, that is fine.

Tracking this in bug 981119 now.