Bug 1002692 - Review Request: rubygem-shoulda-context - Context framework extracted from Shoulda
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-shoulda-context - Context framework extracted from Sh...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Shawn Starr
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-08-29 17:50 UTC by Ken Dreyer
Modified: 2013-09-13 00:59 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-09-13 00:59:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
shawn.starr: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ken Dreyer 2013-08-29 17:50:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-shoulda-context.spec
SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: 
Shoulda's contexts make it easy to write understandable and maintainable
tests for Test::Unit. It's fully compatible with your existing tests in
Test::Unit, and requires no retooling to use.

Refer to the shoulda gem if you want to know more about using shoulda
with Rails or RSpec.
Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer

Comment 1 Shawn Starr 2013-08-29 18:17:25 UTC
Will take this one as per IRC chat

Comment 2 Shawn Starr 2013-08-29 22:56:15 UTC
First pass review, the issues should be fixed.

Issues:
=======
- gems should require rubygems package
  Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-shoulda-context-doc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
- Package contains Requires: ruby(abi).
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_ABI


===== 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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
     shoulda-context-doc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/spstarr/1002692-rubygem-shoulda-
     context/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc
     %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_spec}, %{gem_libdir}
[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-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-shoulda-context-doc-1.1.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
rubygem-shoulda-context.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary convert_to_should_syntax
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rubygem-shoulda-context-doc rubygem-shoulda-context
rubygem-shoulda-context.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary convert_to_should_syntax
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Comment 3 Ken Dreyer 2013-08-29 23:27:22 UTC
(In reply to Shawn Starr from comment #2)
> Issues:
> =======
> - gems should require rubygems package
>   Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-shoulda-context-doc
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
> - Package contains Requires: ruby(abi).
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_ABI

As discussed in IRC, I believe these are bugs in fedora-review. The rubygem-shoulda-context-doc package does not require the rubygems package, and the rubygem-shoulda-context package does not contain a Requires ruby(abi) anywhere.

Comment 4 Shawn Starr 2013-08-30 01:46:17 UTC
Should be ok, if anyone else has objections please raise them otherwise this should be good to go.

Comment 5 Shawn Starr 2013-08-30 01:57:05 UTC
One issue noted:

./usr/bin/convert_to_should_syntax AND ./usr/share/gems/gems/shoulda-context-1.1.5/bin/convert_to_should_syntax

Is there a reason for both?

Comment 6 Shawn Starr 2013-08-30 02:04:33 UTC
If this issue (if an issue) is fixed, then Package approved!

Comment 7 Shawn Starr 2013-08-30 02:06:29 UTC
One additional pass:

[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.

Dependent on /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/specifications
 being there

Comment 8 Ken Dreyer 2013-08-30 16:35:06 UTC
(In reply to Shawn Starr from comment #5)
> One issue noted:
> 
> ./usr/bin/convert_to_should_syntax AND
> ./usr/share/gems/gems/shoulda-context-1.1.5/bin/convert_to_should_syntax
> 
> Is there a reason for both?

From what I understand, it's the convention to include both in the package. See "rubygem-bundler" for an example of this, where "bundle" exists at /usr/bin and /usr/share/gems/gems/bundler-1.3.1/bin .

Comment 9 Shawn Starr 2013-08-30 17:48:40 UTC
That's fine as long as the script in /usr/share/gems/... is not executable (which would be flagged by rpmlint etc).

Package Approved!

Comment 10 Ken Dreyer 2013-08-30 19:02:50 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-shoulda-context
Short Description: Context framework extracted from Shoulda
Owners: ktdreyer
Branches: f19 f20 f21

Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2013-09-01 18:30:14 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

(There's no such thing as a f21 branch yet, the rest done)

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-09-03 17:44:55 UTC
rubygem-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc19

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-09-05 01:27:22 UTC
rubygem-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-09-13 00:59:10 UTC
rubygem-shoulda-context-1.1.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.