Bug 1164357 - Review Request: rubygem-scrub_rb - Pure-ruby polyfill of MRI 2.1 String#scrub
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-scrub_rb - Pure-ruby polyfill of MRI 2.1 String#scrub
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: František Dvořák
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-14 18:17 UTC by Mamoru TASAKA
Modified: 2014-12-03 01:31 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-12-03 01:31:01 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
valtri: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Mamoru TASAKA 2014-11-14 18:17:01 UTC
Spec URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-scrub_rb.spec
SRPM URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-scrub_rb-1.0.1-1.fc.src.rpm
Description: 
This gem provides a pure-ruby implementation of 
`String#scrub` and `#scrub!`, monkey-patched into
String, that should work on any ruby platform. 


Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka

Comment 1 František Dvořák 2014-11-26 23:36:11 UTC
It looks good. The failing test on >= F21 is that known discrepency between scrub_rb and ruby 2.1? Although it is interesting only 2 tests are failing.

Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2014-11-28 09:41:45 UTC
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #1)
> The failing test on >= F21 is that known discrepency between
> scrub_rb and ruby 2.1? 

Exactly.

Comment 3 František Dvořák 2014-11-28 13:42:54 UTC
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #2)
> (In reply to František Dvořák from comment #1)
> > The failing test on >= F21 is that known discrepency between
> > scrub_rb and ruby 2.1? 
> 
> Exactly.

OK. It could be added a comment to the %check section.

Also there is not needed the BR ruby(release).


Both things can be done post-review, or ignored. :-) Package approved!


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


===== 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.
[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.
[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 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:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
     In generated doc.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
     OK: ruby -e "require 'scrub_rb'"
[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.
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Ruby:
[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 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-scrub_rb-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-scrub_rb-doc-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-scrub_rb-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
rubygem-scrub_rb.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) polyfill -> poly fill, poly-fill, polyvinyl
rubygem-scrub_rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb -> Rb, r, b
rubygem-scrub_rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rb -> Rb, r, b
rubygem-scrub_rb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) polyfill -> poly fill, poly-fill, polyvinyl
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint rubygem-scrub_rb-doc rubygem-scrub_rb
rubygem-scrub_rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rb -> Rb, r, b
rubygem-scrub_rb-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rb -> Rb, r, b
rubygem-scrub_rb.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) polyfill -> poly fill, poly-fill, polyvinyl
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
rubygem-scrub_rb-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rubygem-scrub_rb

rubygem-scrub_rb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)



Provides
--------
rubygem-scrub_rb-doc:
    rubygem-scrub_rb-doc

rubygem-scrub_rb:
    rubygem(scrub_rb)
    rubygem-scrub_rb



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/gems/scrub_rb-1.0.1.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7d346064704379f9e793f926680b01901e99e3898bcd24635427f081f8188f37
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d346064704379f9e793f926680b01901e99e3898bcd24635427f081f8188f37


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1164357
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

Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2014-11-29 13:08:10 UTC
Thank you!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-scrub_rb
Short Description: Pure-ruby polyfill of MRI 2.1 String#scrub
Upstream URL: https://github.com/jrochkind/scrub_rb
Owners: mtasaka
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC:

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-12-01 13:36:19 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Mamoru TASAKA 2014-12-03 01:31:01 UTC
Successfully built on all branches and push requests submitted, closing.
Thank you for your help.


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