Bug 1210826 - Review Request: rubygem-pathspec - Use to match path patterns such as gitignore
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-pathspec - Use to match path patterns such as gitignore
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ken Dreyer
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-04-10 15:59 UTC by Orion Poplawski
Modified: 2015-06-04 20:12 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-04 20:12:08 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
ktdreyer: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Orion Poplawski 2015-04-10 15:59:19 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: 
Use to match path patterns such as gitignore.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

Comment 1 Ken Dreyer 2015-04-10 21:24:32 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
1. Currently the %files list has the entire "%{gem_instdir}" directory. This means that CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE, and README.md ship in /usr/share/gems/gems/pathspec-0.0.2/, but these are not marked as %doc. You can use %{gem_libdir} instead:

  %dir %{gem_instdir}
  %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
  %doc %{gem_instdir}/CHANGELOG.md
  %doc %{gem_instdir}/README.md
  %{gem_libdir}

2. %{gem_docdir} should go into a rubygem-pathspec-doc sub-package.

3. %exclude %{gem_cache}

4. Mind running the tests? You can do something like this for %check:

  %check
  pushd .%{gem_instdir}
    rspec -Ilib spec
  popd

  This will BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)


===== 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: Package uses %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists
[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]: gems should require rubygems package
[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
[-]: 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
     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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Ruby:
[!]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
[!]: Test suite of the library should be run.
[!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
     Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc
     %{gem_docdir}, %{gem_libdir}
[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-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
rubygem-pathspec.noarch: W: no-documentation
rubygem-pathspec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
rubygem-pathspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gitignore -> git ignore, git-ignore, ignore
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
rubygem-pathspec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ruby(rubygems)



Provides
--------
rubygem-pathspec:
    rubygem(pathspec)
    rubygem-pathspec



Source checksums
----------------
https://rubygems.org/downloads/pathspec-0.0.2.gem :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7ffd0ba9d0f60bef96d69d4a46b0a5b2e593d6ece5b6d640e82d68e48beea7df
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ffd0ba9d0f60bef96d69d4a46b0a5b2e593d6ece5b6d640e82d68e48beea7df


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1210826 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--yum
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 2 Orion Poplawski 2015-04-11 03:28:12 UTC
So, pathspec doesn't ship a spec file in the gemfile.  Should I switch to building from source for this then?

Comment 3 Ken Dreyer 2015-04-11 16:23:44 UTC
I imported your SRPM into a Git repo so it's clearer. Here's how I recommend handling the tests: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-pathspec.git/commit/?id=2957c1fb52216a43e9b6fc94d4fd7d02cf6738d8

I use a small shell script (rubygem-pathspec-generate-tarball.sh) to download the upstream source zipfile from a GitHub tag, then strip down that zipfile so it only contains the tests. At that point, %setup can decompress Source2 so that it appears to be part of the tree.

To fix this upstream, I've submitted https://github.com/highb/pathspec-ruby/pull/4

Ruby's RSpec library has made some API breaks between 2.x and 3.x, so I've also updated the .spec there to handle both APIs depending on the %{fedora} version. This allows the package to build on Fedora 21, 22, and 23.

Comment 4 Orion Poplawski 2015-04-13 05:01:46 UTC
This is a little different, but seems to work:

* Fri Apr 10 2015 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.0.2-2
- Fix files
- Doc subpackage
- Run tests

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 5 Ken Dreyer 2015-04-18 17:48:00 UTC
All the issues mentioned above are fixed in 0.0.2-2, and that's a great idea with "svn export" for the tests. Scratch build looks good: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9507781

APPROVED

Comment 6 Orion Poplawski 2015-04-18 20:09:25 UTC
Thanks for the review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rubygem-pathspec
Short Description: Use to match path patterns such as gitignore
Upstream URL: https://rubygems.org/gems/pathspec
Owners: orion
Branches: f22 f21 epel7
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-04-19 21:31:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-04-19 23:59:18 UTC
puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-04-21 19:18:45 UTC
Package rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22, rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22 puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22 rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6523/puppet-3.7.5-3.fc22,rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-3.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-04-24 22:45:41 UTC
Package rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22 puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6523/puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22,rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-06-04 20:12:08 UTC
rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc22, puppet-3.7.5-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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