Spec URL: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Colored output for Bacon test framework. Fedora Account System Username: ilgrad
New Spec: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output.spec New SRPM: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm
Package Review ============== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rjoost/tmp/1268742-rubygem-bacon-colored_output/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- bacon-colored_output-doc [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [-]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: gems should not require rubygems package [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. ===== 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-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.0.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-bacon-colored_output rubygem-bacon-colored_output (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(bacon) Provides -------- rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc: rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc rubygem-bacon-colored_output: rubygem(bacon-colored_output) rubygem-bacon-colored_output Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/bacon-colored_output-1.0.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 94653ad17450868ceb8d8154d516ce9201637388a0edfcd6f6b80372bfc18146 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 94653ad17450868ceb8d8154d516ce9201637388a0edfcd6f6b80372bfc18146 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268742 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
To me it looks all fine, except that in the mean time a newer version has been released (sorry :(). Is it possible to update or is there a strong reason to stick with the current version?
(In reply to Roman Joost from comment #3) > To me it looks all fine, except that in the mean time a newer version has > been released (sorry :(). Is it possible to update or is there a strong > reason to stick with the current version? thx! Yes of course. spec:https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output.spec srpm: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc27.src.rpm koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20833470
Package Review ============== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rjoost/tmp/1268742-rubygem-bacon-colored_output/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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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. 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 [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- bacon-colored_output-doc [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Ruby: [x]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [-]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: gems should not require rubygems package [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. ===== 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-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rubygem-bacon-colored_output rubygem-bacon-colored_output (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(rubygems) rubygem(bacon) Provides -------- rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc: rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc rubygem-bacon-colored_output: rubygem(bacon-colored_output) rubygem-bacon-colored_output Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/bacon-colored_output-1.1.1.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fde2b3ec8f42cf0a8b2597bc625b20d5af88d08d9fcc715370953637f780defe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fde2b3ec8f42cf0a8b2597bc625b20d5af88d08d9fcc715370953637f780defe Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268742 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Diff against the old review: --- ../1268742-rubygem-bacon-colored_output_old/review.txt 2017-07-28 09:46:15.738517634 +1000 +++ review.txt 2017-07-31 10:37:06.139563839 +1000 @@ -74,6 +74,17 @@ 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: @@ -86,7 +97,7 @@ Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem- bacon-colored_output-doc [x]: Package functions as described. -[!]: Latest version is packaged. +[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. @@ -122,9 +133,9 @@ Rpmlint ------- -Checking: rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm - rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.0.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm - rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm +Checking: rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm + rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm + rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. @@ -160,14 +171,14 @@ Source checksums ---------------- -https://rubygems.org/gems/bacon-colored_output-1.0.1.gem : - CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 94653ad17450868ceb8d8154d516ce9201637388a0edfcd6f6b80372bfc18146 - CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 94653ad17450868ceb8d8154d516ce9201637388a0edfcd6f6b80372bfc18146 +https://rubygems.org/gems/bacon-colored_output-1.1.1.gem : + CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fde2b3ec8f42cf0a8b2597bc625b20d5af88d08d9fcc715370953637f780defe + CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fde2b3ec8f42cf0a8b2597bc625b20d5af88d08d9fcc715370953637f780defe Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268742 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 -Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api +Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Approved. Many thanks!
Ping ... Could you please import this into Fedora?
BTW the BR: rubygem(bacon) is probably not required, because there is no test suite enabled ...
Hi Vit, yes bacon not needed. new spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output.spec new srpm: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-2.fc27.src.rpm
(In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #10) > Hi Vit, > yes bacon not needed. Thx. But since rubygem-ast does not need this package for its build, do you still want to import it into Fedora? If the answer is 1) yes, then please ask for repository and continue with import and build, because the package was already approved by Roman. 2) no, then close the ticket and forget about this package ;-P
(In reply to Roman Joost from comment #7) > Approved. Many thanks! Hi, can I ask you clear and set again the flag approved? I get this error: (Error: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago))
(In reply to Roman Joost from comment #7) > Approved. Many thanks! Roman, could you maybe mark this as approved again? Error: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Alright went full cycle. Hope this helps?
(In reply to Roman Joost from comment #14) > Alright went full cycle. Hope this helps? Thanks Roman, I corrected the spec: new spec: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output.spec new srpm: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-3.fc28.src.rpm
(In reply to Roman Joost from comment #14) > Alright went full cycle. Hope this helps? Thanks, everything is works.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-bacon-colored_output. You may commit to the branch "f28" in about 10 minutes.