At first 2 things that I want to ask.


1. 

> #-devel
> # BuildRequires: rubygem(posix-spawn)

Why does the only gem: posix-spawn for development is kept as commented line?
While the other gems guard are removed.

2.

> # Test failing with:
> #   expected: "mogrify", got: nil
> sed -i '/^    it "assigns :mogrify by default" do$/,/    end/ s/^/#/g' \
>   spec/lib/mini_magick/configuration_spec.rb

Seeing the source code, this failure happens when mogrify command (ImageMagick package) is not installed. As you are setting ImageMagick as a build dependency, you can remove this sed command line, right?
But after removing the line, you will face a different test failure of ImageMagick unique tests.

```
Failures:

  1) With ImageMagick MiniMagick::Image#details returns a hash of verbose information
     Failure/Error: expect(subject.details["Channel depth"]["Red"]).to eq "8-bit"
     
       expected: "8-bit"
            got: nil
     
       (compared using ==)
     # ./spec/lib/mini_magick/image_spec.rb:423:in `block (5 levels) in <top (required)>'
```

Seeing the source code, the MiniMagick::Image#details is an output of "identify -verbose" command. But maybe the result is invalid. Maybe ImageMagik on Fedora is something wrong. This happens on your environment? Can you dig this or report to the project?

```
<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# rpm -qf /usr/bin/identify
ImageMagick-6.9.9.38-1.fc29.x86_64

<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# identify -verbose
=> The result is empty

<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# identify --help
identify: unable to open image `--help': No such file or directory @ error/blob.c/OpenBlob/2761.
identify: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/504.
```

> <mock-chroot> sh-4.4# identify --help

Sorry I just made mistake. "identify -help" (single "-" is correct).

Below is a result of fedora-review command. 

[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
  The sed command line for "Test failing with" needs a link to upstream, if the sed command is really needed.

(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #1)
> > #-devel
> > # BuildRequires: rubygem(posix-spawn)
> 
> Why does the only gem: posix-spawn for development is kept as commented line?
> While the other gems guard are removed.

Sorry, I forgot to remove those as well.

> 2.
> 
> > # Test failing with:
> > #   expected: "mogrify", got: nil
> > sed -i '/^    it "assigns :mogrify by default" do$/,/    end/ s/^/#/g' \
> >   spec/lib/mini_magick/configuration_spec.rb
> 
> Seeing the source code, this failure happens when mogrify command
> (ImageMagick package) is not installed. As you are setting ImageMagick as a
> build dependency, you can remove this sed command line, right?

You're right. I don't know why I did add the `sed`. Removed.

> But after removing the line, you will face a different test failure of
> ImageMagick unique tests.

No, that failure is unrelated, the tests suceed, see bellow.

> 
> ```
> Failures:
> 
>   1) With ImageMagick MiniMagick::Image#details returns a hash of verbose
> information
>      Failure/Error: expect(subject.details["Channel depth"]["Red"]).to eq
> "8-bit"
>      
>        expected: "8-bit"
>             got: nil
>      
>        (compared using ==)
>      # ./spec/lib/mini_magick/image_spec.rb:423:in `block (5 levels) in <top
> (required)>'
> ```

This is actually fixed by Patch0.
  https://github.com/minimagick/minimagick/pull/454/

--

I've updated the srpm and .spec file in Description. New Scratch-build:
  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27475124

Thanks for finding those issues!

okay, I reviewed it again.
It looks good. I would ACCEPT it.

Fixing assignee.

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/6946

Oh thanks for that.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-mini_magick

Hi Pavel,
After the package are prepared, can you close this ticket?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

Jun,

I am familiar with the review process, no need to remind me all the time. Unless, off course, there's some specific detail you want you point out. Which you didn't.

Yes, the package was built 4 days ago, I just didn't get around to close this ticket. It was in my next cycle.

Thanks for the review.

Pavel,
I believed you are familiear with the review process.
As I saw my assigned BZ is kept not closed for a time, I wanted to remind you.

*** Bug 1264660 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***