Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-cocoon.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-cocoon-1.2.6-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Unobtrusive nested forms handling, using jQuery. Use this and discover cocoon-heaven. Fedora Account System Username: jstribny
The build fails due to not listed files: /usr/share/gems/gems/cocoon-1.2.6/History.md /usr/share/gems/gems/cocoon-1.2.6/VERSION And there are issues, where I'm not sure if they can (or need?) to be fixed: 1) BuildRequires They are probably not needed: BuildRequires: ruby(release) BuildRequires: ruby But there is no problem with them and I guess there can be some advantages to be closer to the gem2rpm template? 2) E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/cocoon-1.2.6/spec/dummy/script/rails 0644L /usr/bin/env But it's not important file, and in -doc subpackage. 3) E: summary-too-long The initial "Gem that enables " could be easily cut off. But fixing that would mean summary different from the original gem... 4) E: zero-length ... Probably no way to solve the favicon.ico file. The .gitkeep could be removed?
Oh, seems like this wasn't a ready package (I always do builds). Either way, you are right in all your points and I fixed them: Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-cocoon.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-cocoon-1.2.6-2.fc22.src.rpm
1) The new 'rm' and 'sed' commands currently have no effect - they need to be placed in %build section, or they should work with %{buildroot}. Btw. the .gitkeep could be excluded the same way as the .travis.yml file? (unless it would affect testing, then it should be removed this way of course). 2) Requires (probably nothing to fix, but it would be worth to check it) There is some strange problem with Requires, they are not generated automagically (ony rubygems is there). For example rubygem(rails) could be needed too. But there are no runtime dependencies even on rubygems.org, so maybe it is expected and developers using cocoon are used to handle that? (also the code itself doesn't have any 'require')
> or they should work with %{buildroot} Yes, that was my intention, good catch, fixed. > For example rubygem(rails) could be needed too Looking at the code, railties should be sufficient. Upstream don't require it since cocoon is used alongside Rails in Rails applications. Nevertheless it could be added for some sanity so I opened the upstream issue[0] and let's see what happens. If the upstream acknowledge it, I will add it to spec. Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-cocoon.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-cocoon-1.2.6-3.fc22.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7238811 [0] https://github.com/nathanvda/cocoon/issues/226
OK, I'm confident enough to finalize review also formally. :-) Could you review swap with #1079640 (rubygem-json_rspec)?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REVIEWS/rubygem-cocoon/1121084 -rubygem-cocoon/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: [-]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files OK. Part of generated documentation. [-]: 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. Launched: ruby -e "require 'rails'; require 'cocoon'" [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]: 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: [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. OK. Commented why and even how it could be launched. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-cocoon-1.2.6-3.fc22.noarch.rpm rubygem-cocoon-doc-1.2.6-3.fc22.noarch.rpm rubygem-cocoon-1.2.6-3.fc22.src.rpm rubygem-cocoon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formtastic -> fantastic rubygem-cocoon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jQuery -> j Query, query, equerry rubygem-cocoon-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/cocoon-1.2.6/spec/dummy/public/favicon.ico rubygem-cocoon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formtastic -> fantastic rubygem-cocoon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jQuery -> j Query, query, equerry 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rubygem-cocoon-doc rubygem-cocoon rubygem-cocoon-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/cocoon-1.2.6/spec/dummy/public/favicon.ico rubygem-cocoon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) formtastic -> fantastic rubygem-cocoon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jQuery -> j Query, query, equerry 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rubygem-cocoon-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-cocoon rubygem-cocoon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- rubygem-cocoon-doc: rubygem-cocoon-doc rubygem-cocoon: rubygem(cocoon) rubygem-cocoon Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/cocoon-1.2.6.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b84aca6d65282cfab3cdc64b93d1ca6d3a03864f624a08224868b241de2f8de9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b84aca6d65282cfab3cdc64b93d1ca6d3a03864f624a08224868b241de2f8de9 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1121084 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 ==== Package approved!
Thank you for the review, I will do the review for rubygem-json_spec, no problem. Please assign yourself to the review next time so it's clear that someone is working on this bug (assign to->take at the top). New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-cocoon Short Description: Easier nested forms with standard forms, formtastic and simple-form Upstream URL: http://github.com/nathanvda/cocoon Owners: jstribny Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).