Bug 1470580 - Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and usi...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pavel Valena
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1380037
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-07-13 09:03 UTC by Vít Ondruch
Modified: 2017-07-14 13:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rubygem-factory_girl-4.8.0-1.fc27
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-07-14 13:40:23 UTC
pvalena: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 640627 None None None Never

Internal Links: 640627

Description Vít Ondruch 2017-07-13 09:03:54 UTC
This is re-review request to unretire rubygem-factory_girl. I need it to execute test suite of rubygem-cucumber-rails.

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-factory_girl.git/plain/rubygem-factory_girl.spec?id=039fe34538785102ea0ca5a87bfe5bb30e051844
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-factory_girl-4.8.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: Framework and DSL for defining and using factories - less error-prone, more explicit, and all-around easier to work with than fixtures.

Fedora Account System Username: vondruch

Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20491971

Comment 1 Pavel Valena 2017-07-13 23:41:29 UTC
Package Review
==============
 - Will you be unretiring the package in two commits? The first one being spec file checkout to 533041868174e19827d4a7374333f20e4b0f377d.
 - Is there any reason for inclusion of `cucumber.yml`?
 - I'd recommend you to use %{gem_name} in `%exclude %{gem_instdir}/factory_girl.gemspec`

Apart from my questions/recommendations above the package is fine, therefore


I APPROVE this package.


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

===== MUST items =====
[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.
[x]: 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 %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 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.
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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.

Comment 2 Vít Ondruch 2017-07-14 08:43:31 UTC
(In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============
>  - Will you be unretiring the package in two commits? The first one being
> spec file checkout to 533041868174e19827d4a7374333f20e4b0f377d.

I am not sure about this yet. It depends how the repository will look. I might do just `fedpkd import` at the end.

>  - Is there any reason for inclusion of `cucumber.yml`?

Good question. But I keep the file as I keep gemfiles, Rakefile, etc. But will reconsider this prior import.

>  - I'd recommend you to use %{gem_name} in `%exclude
> %{gem_instdir}/factory_girl.gemspec`

I am not big fan of this. It does not provide any benefit to use the macro on this place. If the package was renamed in the future, this would be the smallest change ...


Thx for the review!


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