Description of problem: New package: rubygem-parse-cron (dependency for OpenNebula) SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~spstarr/packages/rubygem-parse-cron/rubygem-parse-cron.spec SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~spstarr/packages/rubygem-parse-cron/rubygem-parse-cron-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
as discussed on #fedora-ruby in IRC, I'll take this review.
Description: parses cron expressions and calculates the next occurrence after a given date
Please remove %doc from the three lines listed under "Issues". I assume you'll do this when you import the package into dist-git. Package approved! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= The following lines should not be marked as %doc: %doc %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile %doc %{gem_instdir}/spec/cron_parser_spec.rb %doc %{gem_instdir}/spec/spec_helper.rb Also, you can reduce the two "spec" lines and just list the "spec" directory. It's one less line, and you won't have to worry about missing additional files in the future if upstream decides to alter the layout of this directory down the road. Lastly, would you mind filing a bug upstream to include "License" in the gem? ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. See "issues" above - technically those three files should not be %doc. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. License file is present in Git, but upstream does not ship it in the gem. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Yes, MIT. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. License file is present in Git, but upstream does not ship it in the gem. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Ruby: [x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Ruby: [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-parse-cron-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm rubygem-parse-cron-doc-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm rubygem-parse-cron.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-parse-cron rubygem-parse-cron-doc rubygem-parse-cron.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-parse-cron (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem-parse-cron-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-parse-cron Provides -------- rubygem-parse-cron: rubygem(parse-cron) rubygem-parse-cron rubygem-parse-cron-doc: rubygem-parse-cron-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/parse-cron-0.1.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d22cf831965717c9327384b311a32e6acbfc027c9ce5e37f183b27f988b58908 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d22cf831965717c9327384b311a32e6acbfc027c9ce5e37f183b27f988b58908 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-19-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1001865
1) removed %doc from those files 2) now just use in %files doc : %{gem_instdir}/spec 3) Filed bug with upstream to include License in the gem. (https://github.com/siebertm/parse-cron/issues/14)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-parse-cron Short Description: Parses cron expressions and calculates the next occurrence Owners: spstarr Branches: f19 f20 f21
Oops, the review was + already from Ken
Git done (by process-git-requests). (There's no such thing as f21 branches yet, the rest done)