Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-rspec-support.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-rspec-support-3.0.0-0.1.beta1.fc.src.rpm Description: `RSpec::Support` provides common functionality to `RSpec::Core`, `RSpec::Expectations` and `RSpec::Mocks`. It is considered suitable for internal use only at this time. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka This package is required for Rspec 3 series
I can take this review. Can you comment on this section? Why can't that number be set to "3" yet? # Need fix Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = 2.999
A straightforward package that follows the packaging guidelines. Please comment on why the package provides rubygem(rspec-support) = 2.999, since it seems to me (and my naive understanding) that it should provide %{version} instead. That is the only thing that holds up my approval of the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= (none) ===== 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]: 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. -rubygem-rspec-support/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ruby: [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 ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [-]: %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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [-]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-rspec-support-3.0.0-0.1.beta1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-rspec-support-doc-3.0.0-0.1.beta1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-rspec-support-3.0.0-0.1.beta1.fc20.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-rspec-support rubygem-rspec-support-doc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-rspec-support (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem-rspec-support-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-rspec-support Provides -------- rubygem-rspec-support: rubygem(rspec-support) rubygem-rspec-support rubygem-rspec-support-doc: rubygem-rspec-support-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/rspec-support-3.0.0.beta1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f232d90c57b384f4bac7c0bc8e44b1d6171cbbe5afc24b6893e0333cacf5b26c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f232d90c57b384f4bac7c0bc8e44b1d6171cbbe5afc24b6893e0333cacf5b26c Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1060651 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Well, as this is prelease I thought using fake pre-3 version is better for fake Provides, however now I write full EVR provides and it should be okay. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-rspec-support.spec mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-rspec-support-3.0.0-0.2.beta1.fc.src.rpm * Mon Feb 10 2014 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka.ne.jp> - 3.0.0-0.2.beta1 - Modify Provides EVR
Looks good to me. Package APPROVED.
Thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-rspec-support Short Description: Common functionality to Rspec series Owners: mtasaka Branches:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Sorry for delay. Imported, closing. Thank you for review and git procedure.