Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jdunn/rubygem-chef-zero/rubygem-chef-zero.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jdunn/rubygem-chef-zero/rubygem-chef-zero-2.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes. This is a pre-requisite to getting Chef into Fedora.
Fix review title as per: Review Request: <main package name> - <short summary>
Created attachment 902442 [details] rpmlint of 2.0.2-1 Issues: ======= - LICENSE should be in main package as %doc - mixlib-log/hashie requires are missing version specifications - latest version not packaged (2.1.5 vs 2.0.2) - License fields should be "ASL 2.0" - rpmlint (E): summary-too-long, 79 chars max - rpmlint (W): macro-in-comment %gem_dir, may be removed - rpmlint (W): no-manual-page-for-binary chef-zero, should file an upstream bug report to request one (can be waived) Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dcleal/tmp/1079111/review- rubygem-chef-zero/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [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. [!]: 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]: 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 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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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: [X]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: 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 (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 is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude /usr/share/gems/cache/chef-zero-2.0.2.gem, /usr/share/gems/specifications /chef-zero-2.0.2.gemspec [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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-chef-zero-2.0.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-chef-zero-doc-2.0.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-chef-zero-2.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chef-zero rubygem-chef-zero-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-chef-zero.src: E: summary-too-long C Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes rubygem-chef-zero.src: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-chef-zero.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %gem_dir 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-chef-zero rubygem-chef-zero-doc rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chef-zero rubygem-chef-zero-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-chef-zero (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) rubygem(hashie) rubygem(json) rubygem(mixlib-log) rubygem(rack) rubygem-chef-zero-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-chef-zero Provides -------- rubygem-chef-zero: rubygem(chef-zero) rubygem-chef-zero rubygem-chef-zero-doc: rubygem-chef-zero-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/chef-zero-2.0.2.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8d12f3f59f2e6442353c1d4c8c0df1ac9dd2cc88a134244fb15d5f8c1e2fc1b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8d12f3f59f2e6442353c1d4c8c0df1ac9dd2cc88a134244fb15d5f8c1e2fc1b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rubygem-chef-zero 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
Hi Dominic; thanks for the review. I've fixed the issues that I could, and updated to 2.1.5. Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jdunn/rubygem-chef-zero/rubygem-chef-zero.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jdunn/rubygem-chef-zero/rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc21.src.rpm
Looks better, though we seem to have lost the Requires for ruby, hashie, rack etc.
(In reply to Dominic Cleal from comment #4) > Looks better, though we seem to have lost the Requires for ruby, hashie, > rack etc. Hi Dominic - I took those out deliberately because the Ruby packaging guidelines were recently updated with this text: "There should not be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those are autogenerated." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#RubyGems
(In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #5) > (In reply to Dominic Cleal from comment #4) > > Looks better, though we seem to have lost the Requires for ruby, hashie, > > rack etc. > > Hi Dominic - I took those out deliberately because the Ruby packaging > guidelines were recently updated with this text: > > "There should not be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those > are autogenerated." > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#RubyGems Very neat, I hadn't seen that. I erroneously built it on F20 rather than rawhide, where they weren't generated automatically. If you want to use it on F20 or EL6, you'll need to add dependencies and either ruby(release) or ruby(abi) as appropriate. I have no remaining issues, the package is ready to ship IMHO. Thanks! ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dcleal/tmp/1079111b/review- rubygem-chef-zero/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems, /usr/share/gems/doc [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]: 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 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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [x]: 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. [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude /usr/share/gems/cache/chef-zero-2.1.5.gem, /usr/share/gems/specifications /chef-zero-2.1.5.gemspec [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake. [x]: Test suite of the library should be run. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-chef-zero-doc-2.1.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc21.src.rpm rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chef-zero 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-chef-zero rubygem-chef-zero-doc rubygem-chef-zero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chef-zero 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-chef-zero (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(rubygems) rubygem(hashie) rubygem(json) rubygem(mixlib-log) rubygem(rack) rubygem-chef-zero-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-chef-zero Provides -------- rubygem-chef-zero: rubygem(chef-zero) rubygem-chef-zero rubygem-chef-zero-doc: rubygem-chef-zero-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/chef-zero-2.1.5.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58313b02bef4bb3ded074560886e61206abbd759331e24868001a8fb6bfbacfc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58313b02bef4bb3ded074560886e61206abbd759331e24868001a8fb6bfbacfc Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rubygem-chef-zero -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Created attachment 902961 [details] rpmlint of 2.1.5-1
(In reply to Dominic Cleal from comment #6) > (In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #5) > > (In reply to Dominic Cleal from comment #4) > > > Looks better, though we seem to have lost the Requires for ruby, hashie, > > > rack etc. > > > > Hi Dominic - I took those out deliberately because the Ruby packaging > > guidelines were recently updated with this text: > > > > "There should not be any rubygem Requires nor Provides listed, since those > > are autogenerated." > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#RubyGems > > Very neat, I hadn't seen that. I erroneously built it on F20 rather than > rawhide, where they weren't generated automatically. If you want to use it > on F20 or EL6, you'll need to add dependencies and either ruby(release) or > ruby(abi) as appropriate. Good point, I knew there was a reason for me having had those in there. I'll put 'em back when I import.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-chef-zero Short Description: Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes Upstream URL: https://github.com/opscode/chef-zero Owners: jdunn Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc20
rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-2.el6
rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.