Bug 1031317 - Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ken Dreyer
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1031316
Blocks: 1031318
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-11-16 14:17 EST by Mamoru TASAKA
Modified: 2013-12-05 04:05 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-12-05 04:05:31 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
ktdreyer: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mamoru TASAKA 2013-11-16 14:17:41 EST
Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rabbit-related/rubygem-rttool.spec
SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rabbit-related/rubygem-rttool-
RT is a simple and human-readable table format.
RTtool is a converter from RT into various formats.
RT can be incorporated into RD.

Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka
Copr build:
Comment 1 Mamoru TASAKA 2013-11-28 04:14:23 EST
( While rubygem-rdtool is currently in testing on F-19 and F-20, these are in koji buildroot, because I made them have override tag, so koji scratch build for rttool can be done for F-21, 20 and 19)
Comment 2 Ken Dreyer 2013-11-29 18:05:54 EST
I can take this review.
Comment 3 Ken Dreyer 2013-11-29 18:51:03 EST

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

None of these issues are blockers, just recommendations.

- I recommend deleting the "Generated by gem2rpm" comment, since the version
  number will grow stale.

- I recommend extending the shebang replacements to bin/rt2, bin/rdrt2,
  bin/rt/rt2, bin/rt/rdrt2, since those files are causing RPM to autorequire

I've opened https://github.com/genki/rttool/issues/1 upstream for the incorrect-fsf-address issue.

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
     independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[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
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

[x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
[x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: rubygem-rttool-
rubygem-rttool.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/rttool-
rubygem-rttool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rt2
rubygem-rttool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdrt2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint rubygem-rttool rubygem-rttool-doc
rubygem-rttool.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gems/gems/rttool-
rubygem-rttool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rt2
rubygem-rttool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdrt2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

rubygem-rttool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

rubygem-rttool-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://rubygems.org/gems/rttool- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4db7e95300d4b3ff7ad42e063a66497c45c19fa28f877fb8a9256ce9e211f460
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4db7e95300d4b3ff7ad42e063a66497c45c19fa28f877fb8a9256ce9e211f460

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1031317 -x CheckDirectoryRequire,CheckOwnDirs
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2013-11-30 13:10:44 EST
Thank you for review!
By the way, would you change fedora-cvs flag to fedora-review flag?
Comment 5 Ken Dreyer 2013-11-30 18:18:42 EST
Whoops, sorry about that! Flags fixed.
Comment 6 Mamoru TASAKA 2013-12-01 08:29:19 EST
Thank you!

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: rubygem-rttool
Short Description: Converter from RT into various formats
Owners: mtasaka
Branches: f19 f20
Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-12-01 16:45:39 EST
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 8 Mamoru TASAKA 2013-12-05 04:05:31 EST
Rebuilt for all branches, push requested for F-20/19, closing.

Thank you for review and git procedure.

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